Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, June 19, 2017

The crisis over Qatar is happening because the other Arab countries want to silence Al Jazeera, the former director general of the Qatar-based TV network said. "It is very clear that the current crisis emanates as an extension of continuous fear of Al Jazeera, due to the independent and objective journalism it practices in the Arab world. Al Jazeera transformed Arab media from being natural extensions of intelligence and security agencies to independent sectors whose values were transparency, accountability and democracy. This is exactly what so many Arab regimes fear," Wadah Khanfar said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"I view the current dispute as a continuation of the fallout from Al Jazeera's coverage of the Arab Spring and its aftermath. The Government of Qatar didn't share or endorse the policies of fellow Gulf countries to support counter revolutionary forces, which infuriated them, and in turn the Trump administration provided the opportunity for these Gulf states to settle their accounts with Doha and by extension Al Jazeera," Khanfar said.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


For the brief time I was able to watch AJ, I thought it was quite reasonable in its coverage of the news.

I can see why the person who wrote the article is of the opinion he projects.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-06-19 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Attacking the free press is what dictators do.

#2 | Posted by bored at 2017-06-19 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

...because the other Arab countries want to silence Al Jazeera"

And who, pray tell, is behind the Arab countries wanting to silence Al Jazeera?

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-06-19 03:06 PM | Reply

#3 | Posted by pumpkinhead

A bunch of dictators.

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-06-19 03:24 PM | Reply

#1 - I too was able to watch AJ for a while and I was surprised by the objective coverage I saw, at least in the general news programs I watched. It was not what I had expected at all.

#5 | Posted by Foreigner at 2017-06-19 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"A bunch of dictators"

That are financed and supported by???

#6 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-06-19 04:44 PM | Reply

Not buying it. The west did (is doing) it's best to dethrone the few remaining vestigial cold war dictators. And the result have been utterly disastrous. The author seems to share the opinion with many in the west that the Arab states are just waiting to cast off their suppressive rulers and embrace western democracy. How the ---- you could think that this is even a remote possibility is beyond me. You'd literally need to ignore most of the last three decades.

No one liked Saddam, but history has shown us he was the best option. As was Khadaffi. As was Mubarak. As is Assad. There is no democratic outcome possible in a place like Syria. You can have a strong dictator who reigns in the fundamentalist factions, or you can have a country where all but the most committed believes are killed or enslaved in the name of Islam. Not sure why that choice isn't clear to most Americans.

#7 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-19 04:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I suspect that Qatar's misstep is in that they weren't sufficiently anti-Iranian or pro-Saudi Arabian. And if they were funding terrorism, they weren't funding the right kind of terrorism. Had they been funding ISIS and AQ with the rest of their Muslim brothers on the west side of the gulf, they wouldn't have had a problem.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-19 04:58 PM | Reply

"There is no democratic outcome possible in a place like Syria."

Right. Because they are just barbarians. It is not as if the west spent centuries stamping out real democracy in the region. /snark

#9 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 05:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No one liked Saddam, but history has shown us he was the best option. As was Khadaffi. As was Mubarak. As is Assad."

Why do you hate freedom?

#10 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 05:02 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Why do you hate freedom?"

Cuz it's far much harder to declare than war.

#11 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2017-06-19 05:05 PM | Reply

"No one liked Saddam, but history has shown us he was the best option."

Actually, in the case of Iraq, there were much better options than the one we took.

But, unfortunately for America and the World, Bush just had to be a War Preznit.

Because, apparently, Diplomacy is for -------.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-06-19 05:15 PM | Reply

"Why do you hate freedom?"

Are you saying that Iraq is freer now?

"Actually, in the case of Iraq, there were much better options than the one we took."

Agreed. I think that we should have bought him off. Removed sanctions and made him a partner in the fight against political Islam. After all, he had been going after the Islamists for years before we got involved. I suspect that if we drilled down, we'd find that Saddam was actually waging war against the Islamists back when they were our partners acting against the USSR. Same thing with Assad the elder.

#13 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-19 06:03 PM | Reply

"But, unfortunately for America and the World, Bush just had to be a War Preznit. Because, apparently, Diplomacy is for -------."

Bush, Hillary, 70% of the Senate, 69% of the house, and 70% of the population all approved of the invasion.

One of my last papers in college was why it was a stupid move. I wish I hadn't been so correct.

#14 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-19 06:07 PM | Reply

Agreed. I think that we should have bought him off. Removed sanctions and made him a partner in the fight against political Islam.

#13 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2017-06-19 06:03 PM | FLAG: loves tyrants, hates Islam

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 06:19 PM | Reply

"FLAG: loves tyrants, hates Islam"

Saddam was a Muslim. But he was tolerant of most religions, including what few Jews remained in Iraq. Same with Assad, who violently suppressed those Islamic forces who would otherwise have been burning Jews and Christians with vigor equal to that of the Nazis.

Maybe you prefer the "democratic outcome" where the majority voters elect to lop the heads off the minority, and enslave whomever remains...

You're right, I prefer the tyrant. Although I would happily sentence you to whatever short life you might be able to mete out under and Islam set free of the restraints imposed on it by the civilized world.

#16 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-19 10:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"You're right, I prefer the tyrant."

I know I am. And self servingly so. How nice that you rationalize it so well: only dictators can restrain "savages," right? And, of course you take no responsibility for making that region what it is.

"Although I would happily sentence you to whatever short life you might be able to mete out under and Islam set free of the restraints imposed on it by the civilized world."

Now there is that Islamophobia I was talking about.

#17 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-19 10:21 PM | Reply

Saddam was a Moslem and Assad too.

Whitey Bulger and Pablo Escobar and El Chapo were Catholics.
Yeah they follow the book, quack!

#18 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-06-19 10:30 PM | Reply

"And, of course you take no responsibility for making that region what it is."

Sure I do. I thought I mentioned that. The savagery was already there...but it was kept in check by leaders. We took out most of those leaders...still trying with others.

"Now there is that Islamophobia I was talking about."

You're desperately ------- -------- if you think your position somehow favors Muslims. It takes a lot of willful ignorance to come to that conclusion. First, there is no "tyrant free" possibility. At best, a post-ISIS middle east resembles the Saudi Kingdom. More likely, it'll just be ISIS with another name. Maybe the Free Syrian Army, or the Syrian Democratic Forces.

...and if you've been paying attention, ISIS put bullets through the heads of far more dissenting Muslims than the Saudi Kingdom has. It's tough to figure how you're not the Islamophobe...favoring the conditions where Muslims are held at greater risk. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and a host of others were far safer (for all religions) when under the thumb of suppressive dictators than they are now.

#19 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-20 09:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Al-Jizzera live feed.

www.youtube.com

English.

#20 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2017-06-20 12:31 PM | Reply

"First, there is no "tyrant free" possibility."

So you keep claiming. Because they are just savages who need to be caged by a nice, brutal autocracy. But, in a display of mental gymnastics, you attempt make ME out as the Islamophobic one. Got it.

#21 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 08:02 PM | Reply

"So you keep claiming."

Do this. Show me an instance where there was a "tyranny free" possibility.

And I don't really think that you're an Islamophobia so much as it is you suffer from a congenital case of rich people problem syndrome. You're a typical, sheltered American who's not able to grasp the fact that the middle east is not a region just waiting to blossom into democracy. You're not alone. Many Americans thought that was exactly what was going to happen in Afganistan once the Taliban had been tossed out. Or in Iraq once Saddam was gone. Or in Egypt once Mubarak had been replaced. Or in Libya, post Khaddafi.

There are some who, as crazy as it sounds, think that Syria is going to be better off without Assad. Honestly, you've got to have your head buried pretty deep for that. but it's clear you do. Either that or you regard the victory of political Islam in a positive light...which is possible. My understanding is that there are many who support the Islamists. Maybe you're one. Maybe the death of tens of thousands of not quite pure enough Muslims is justified in the name of establishing a stronger caliphate.

Again, I encourage you to assist in that effort of overthrowing these violent, tyrannical regimes. Surely ISIS and Al Quaeda have websites available to assist you in this effort.

#22 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-20 09:37 PM | Reply

#22

I am sorry that your political education is so deficient that you are ignorant of what centuries of imperialism have done to the region.

I am sorry that your logical education is so deficient that, seeing the situation in the region, you propose as self evident an absurd false dichotomy of supporting Islamist terror or brutal tyranny.

And most of all, I am sorry that your moral eduction is so deficient that you (self servingly and uniformly) endorse tyranny and twist it into some sort of moral high ground, while taking no responsibility for the implications of such a stance.

It is difficult to see someone failed so completely by whoever was charged with educating them.

#23 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-06-20 10:11 PM | Reply

"It's tough to figure how you're not the Islamophobe...favoring the conditions where Muslims are held at greater risk. Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and a host of others were far safer (for all religions) when under the thumb of suppressive dictators than they are now."

We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-06-20 10:22 PM | Reply

#23

Seriously? This isn't about education or speculating on theoreticals...this is based on what actually happened 100% of the time when strong-arm dictators were deposed by the west in the name of Democracy and representative government. How far down must your head be buried not to recognize this...or is this you, no kidding, willfully disregarding realities that conflict with your closely held faith.

You can also approach it from the side of the Islamists, who almost without exception adhere to the belief that Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, and as such is antithetical to Democracy or any other form of government. When the Islamic Salvation Front was vying for power in Algeria, their mantra was one man, one vote, once. They were trying to appeal to voters on a platform of eliminating one's right to vote. Not sure how you can defend that.

As for Imperialism...I think you'll need to go back millennia, not centuries. I'm not sure we even know who the first invading army might have been.

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-21 09:13 AM | Reply

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!"

I'm always the conspiracy theorist, but I think that our problem with ISIS is that they overstepped their mandate and went into Iraq, when they only supposed to fight the Syrian government as a means of destabilizing that regime and denying the Russians and Iranians a conduit for influence in the region.

I suspect that once Mosul has been liberated and ISIS pushed out of Iraq, we'll see less and less US activity against ISIS.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2017-06-21 09:16 AM | Reply

WOW!

OMG Read the whole article. This is one of the most subtle bits of bias I have ever read. The bias culminates in this quote from the article.

"The authoritarian regimes are comfortable with their current American approach, and now we are officially back to the pre-Arab Spring era."

What was sounding like some pretty decent "counter-current-thinking" opinion just went right off the rails with this nasty statement. Here is what's wrong with this statement. How can we POSSIBLY be back in a pre Arab Spring era when there is NO stable government in Syria. No stable Government in Libyia, and Egypt is being held together by a military dictator who had to step in and FORCE order back into existence in an Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood was waging genocide against Christians and Jews, and anyone else who disagreed with them.

If America was pushing for Stability while sacrificing Democracy in the Mid East. Why is the United States NOT supporting Bashar Al Assad's government? The Assad Government is the ONLY local force for stability in Syria. And, the U.S. keeps supporting the idea of "regime change" in all that it does there. The Russians are doing just that, supporting Assad as the ONLY recognized legitimate government in Syria.

If America was pushing for Stability in the Middle East why did we do nothing when the Muslim Brotherhood overthrew the only Stable governing force in Egypt during the, so called, Arab Spring?

If America was pushing for Stability over Democracy in the Middle East why did we overthrow and sanction the assassination of Muammar Gaddafi, the only force for stability in Lybia?

There are so many contradictions in the reality of what is going on in the Middle East to this fellow Khanfar's statements about what is going on, that when you get to this statement you have to wonder which addiction he is having so much trouble managing.

#27 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-06-21 10:19 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort