Sunday, June 7, 2009

Terra Incognita 88 Part 2: The Media's recent lies

Terra Incognita
Issue 88

“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


June 4th, 2009

2) Chronicles of Hate and coverup: Norman Rose, Egypt, Sudan and Rueters: A few observations of the world we live in including a new book on the Palestine Mandate, a documentary of Sudan and a Rueters coverup of the Armenian and Greek genocides in Turkey.

Chronicles of Hate and coverup: Norman Rose, Egypt, Sudan and Rueters
May 31, 2009
Eth J. Frantzman

On May 28th, Reuters reported that “Turkey, which historically has poor relations with Armenia, said in April it was close to establishing diplomatic relations after it closed its border with Armenia in 1993. Turkey and Armenia trace their own dispute back to the First World War killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday criticized state policies that led to the expulsion of tens of thousands of Christian ethnic Greeks in the 20th century as ‘fascist.’” This massive distortion of history is typical of the wire agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters which frequently rely on local ‘journalists’ for their wire reports. Let us count the ways Reuters got its history wrong. To claim that the dispute between Armenia and Turkey is merely about the “killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks” would be akin to say that Israeli-German relations were only about the “killing of Jews by Nazi Germans.” There is, in the sentence, no description of what killing, not even the word “massacre” is used, let alone genocide. 1.2 million Armenians were killed between 1915 and 1920 by the Ottoman Turkish government. Is that just some “killing.” And of the Greeks it was not “tens of thousands” but also over a million, including not just Greeks but also Assyrians and the Greeks known as Pontic Greeks. But is it a surprise that one of the West’s major wire services should cover up the 20th century’s first genocide? After all, how have we, the ‘human rights generation’ done regarding the 21st century’s first genocide in Sudan?

This is the generation of ‘human rights’. Everyone is a supporter of this ridiculous value. Who can be against ‘human rights’? But how are those rights doing? Do humans have more rights now than they did 100 years ago. We like to pat ourselves on the back and claim they do. We have conferences and committees and watch groups and activists and legions of volunteers that talk a lot about human rights. But this is also the generation that talks a lot about genocide and yet it is the era where genocides happens more often than in any other generation. Between Rwanda and Darfur there was only 10 years. Between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust there were 25 years. Between the Holocaust and Cambodia there were 30 years. Then between that and 1994 there were 20 years. We aren’t doing ‘never again’, we are doing it again and again and again. Our pashas of genocide literature are too busy blaming the U.S for genocides. The U.S is blamed for not defining the Rwandan genocide as a genocide, remember ‘holocaust survivor’ Madeline Albright claiming that it was just “acts” of genocide. But Bush is blamed for calling the Sudanese genocide a ‘genocide’ and thus creating a “climate of debate” about whether it was a genocide or not. No matter that the other 222 other countries in the world didn’t do anything to define either of these mass murders as genocide or not, let along lift a finger. That’s right. What did Russia do? Nothing. China? Nothing. Austria? Nothing. England? Nothing. France? Nothing (well it aided the genocidaires in Rwanda). Germany? Nothing. Spain? Nothing. Japan? Nothing. Australia? Nothing. Canada? Nothing. Brazil? Nothing. South Africa? Nothing. Egypt? Nothing. Iran? Nothing. India? Nothing. But no blame for the rest of the world. The era of ‘human rights’ is no less than an era in which humans have few rights but where everyone speaks about ‘racism’ and ‘human rights’.

Given the recent documentary on Darfur, Sand and Sorrow one learns why the genocide was so successful and why Arab Islamist sponsored genocide has always been and will always be successful. It includes three methods; slavery, rape and murder. The children are kidnapped and enslaved, the women are raped and the men are murdered. This logic of cleansing has been the practice of Islamism since its earliest days in the 8th century. It was carried out to perfect effect in every land conquered by this hate-mongering ideology, from Egypt to North Africa and India. It illustrates the triumph of mobile herders over farmers. The Africans in the Sudan are farmers forever at the mercy of Bedouin nomadic raiders who arrive, rape the women, murder the men and steal the children. The black rebel groups of course do what every nation that has fought Islamism has always done, it fights the Sudanese military, just as Byzantium fought the Arab armies. It doesn’t target the women and children and yet it is them who provide the resource for more and more armies of Islamist fighters. Polygamy and enslavement and rape are the cruel weapons that lead to victory, today as much as they did in the 8th century.

We can see a similar process at work in Egypt. Whereas in Sudan the blacks are referred to as ‘slave’ by the Arabs who massacre them, in Egypt the Christian Coptic garbage pickers are called ‘Zabaleen’ or ‘garbage collectors’. Using the swine flu, which is not spread by swine, as an excuse the Egyptian government ordered all the pigs, who are owned by Christians, killed in Egypt. It is yet another nail in the coffin of the minority, a minority that is weak and one that, like all minorities under Islam, will never resort to terror in order to raise its head.

Norman Rose is a erudite upper class Briton who has penned a book entitled A Senseless, Squalid War: Voices from Palestine, 1948-1947. He is a graduate of the London School of Economics and is the chair of the department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is an anti-semite. In his book he speaks about “Zionist propaganda” and he speaks about the U.S being “putty in the hands of the Jews” and as if that were not enough he ignores Arab terrorism in the lead up to the 1948 war. Of course the British press is cooing about the book. The Spectator calls it “even-handed”. Anti-semitism can be hard and it can be soft. In the case of Rose, like his fellow Israel hater Jacqueline Rose, he uses the subtleties of language. He calls Jewish terrorism “cruel”. But Arab terrorism is just a few “killings”. When Jews die it is because of “revenge” and when Arabs are killed it is a tragedy. This is how racism works: one value for one side and another for the other.

1 comment:

Unknown said...

well obviously you are previewing a book you never read or worse you did not understand a word you read.
but i guess when you are 27 and writing so much rubbish anywhere possible you have no time to read