RSSUS Television in Middle East Broadcasts Terror Messages
Only government could be this dense.
If you were to create a television station in the Middle East, would you think that it would be a good idea to hire managers of the station that spoke Arabic? Well the US Government sposored Al Hurra station failed to do that and the station was slowly infiltrated by those that had a decidedly different message than the one expected to go out.
Shows that had rants on destroying Israel and agreeing with Iranian leaders were fairly common. But the madness that is the bureaucracy to fail to have anyone on staff that understood what was being aired is amazing. And you wonder why we are having trouble winning the hearts and minds of the Middle East.
The station’s gaffes have included broadcasting in December 2006 a 68-minute call to arms against Israelis by a senior figure of the terrorist group Hezbollah; deferential coverage of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial conference; and a factually flawed piece on a splinter group of Orthodox Jews who oppose the state of Israel, according to the Wall Street Journal, which has reported the network’s travails for months.
At the hearing, Blaya and other officials assured lawmakers that some of the staffers involved in the controversial broadcasts had been fired. They also said the network now has an assignment desk, staffed by Arabic-speaking editors. And the network’s vice president of news has hired an Arabic speaker to help monitor its broadcasts and ensure the material is consistent with al Hurra’s mission. The Blotter
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
4 Responses to “US Television in Middle East Broadcasts Terror Messages”
Leave a Reply
Please tell this is not true.
All I can say WTH???? Wouldn’t a half-brained idiot, think they would have to get translators to make sure what was being said.
Does anyone remember the translators with Regan and Gorbby?
Ronald Reagan is considered a hero by this Canadian.
If the logic of this great statesman had been comprehended …. today the democracies of the free world would not be held hostage by the Islamic agenda.
Reagan reconized that the politically correct policies that democratic governments of the free world were adopting in the 70/80′s in regards to immigration … in regards to the “special” rights afforded to “certain” immigrants … in the name of tolerance … would ultimately be used as a weapon to destroy our civilizations as we know it.
If the democracies of the free world do not wake up and … do what needs to be done … say what needs to be said for the protection of their own …… for the protection of westerm civilization ….. I can only assume that 9/11 was just a preview of what lies ahead.
.
6-21-04
.
Before We Move on, Let’s Remember Ronald Reagan’s First Victory Against Terrorism
By Daniel Pipes
.
The first American victory in the war on terror was won by Ronald Reagan, and it happened on Jan. 20, 1981, the first day of his presidency.
.
That was when the jihadists running the Islamic Republic of Iran released 52 American hostages precisely as Reagan took the oath of office. After 444 days of humbling Jimmy Carter, the rulers in Tehran decided to conclude their drama at the U.S. embassy before they had to face the new president. This marked the first of Reagan’s foreign policy successes.
.
To begin, some background: When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah of Iran in February 1979, he established the first modern Islamist regime, one drawing on fascist and communist methods but with the quite different goal of implementing Islamic law (the Shari’a). Like the Taliban regime that later came to power in Afghanistan, the Khomeinists claimed to have the answers to all life’s questions. They created a totalitarian order intent on controlling every aspect of Iranian life domestically and spreading the revolution abroad.
.
In common with all radical utopian despots, Khomeini viewed the United States as the main obstacle to implementing his program. Like the Taliban leaders later, he attacked individual Americans. Only in his case, he settled for the Americans conveniently on Iranian soil, rather than going to the trouble of attacking New York and Washington.
.
On November 4, 1979, a mob indirectly under Khomeini’s direction seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, an action that encouraged Islamist confidence and unleashed Muslim fury against Americans worldwide. That fury then took violent form when Khomeini inaccurately declared that the capture of the Great Mosque of Mecca on November 20 was a U.S.-led assault on the sanctities of Islam. (In fact, it was carried out by a group of bin Laden-like fanatics.)
.
A wave of anti-American mob attacks then followed in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The worst of the violence was in Libya and Pakistan; in the latter country, four deaths resulted – among the first fatalities of militant Islam’s war on America.
.
In reaction, Jimmy Carter hemmed like Bill Clinton and hawed like John Kerry. He got bogged down in diplomatic details and lost sight of principles and goals. For example, he responded in part to the embassy takeover by hoping “to convince and to persuade the Iranian leaders that the real danger to their nation lies in the north, in the Soviet Union.”
.
He responded to diplomatic efforts like a technician: “It’s up to the Iranians” to make the next move, he said in late 1980. “I think it would certainly be to their advantage and to ours to resolve this issue without any further delay. I think our answers are adequate. I believe the Iranian proposal was a basis for a resolution of the differences.”
.
In contrast, as president-elect, Ronald Reagan took a bold stance. He called the Iranian captors “criminals and kidnappers” and he called the political leaders “kidnappers.” If they understood from his insults, he added, “that they shouldn’t be waiting for me [to take office], I’d be very happy.”
.
Reagan and his aides adopted a threatening tone. “We’ll just have to do something to bring [the hostages] home,” he warned. Edwin Meese III, his transition chief, spoke more explicitly: “the Iranians should be prepared that this country will take whatever action is appropriate” and they “ought to think over very carefully the fact that it would certainly be to their advantage to get the hostages back now.”
.
Reagan’s tough words and tough reputation won the United States a rare bloodless victory over militant Islam. Even a senior Carter administration official, though preferring to emphasize his boss’s mistakes over Reagan’s strengths, grudgingly acknowledged that “we probably would not be getting the hostages out now if Carter had been reelected.”
Does our government seriously believe that a radio station is going to change minds in the Middle East? Talk about cultural blinders….
The principle is absolute: If a nation or individual is not morally inclined to do right because it is right … then the fear of consequences needs to be the motivating force. The policies of the democracies of the free world that tolerant and appease are signs of weakness which is only abet in furthering the agenda of the enemy.
Think about it … with or without American funding … would Middle East media outlets be openly depicing the United States as the enemy/Satan if … for one minute … they feared that the nation that was once regarded as the greatest democracy on the face of the earth would retaliate with strength.
Think about it … if the tiny island of Aruba feared serious consequences from the United States of America for denying justice to one of Her own citizens … the Natalee Holloway story would now be a distance memory and … Natalee’s family would have been provided a measure of closure.
Policies of tolerance and appeasement toward the enemy are betrayals by a democratic government to its citizens … these policies put their own on risk.
_________________
“The reality is that we must find peace through strength.”
Ronald Reagan, 1983