Most Muslim coverage 'negative'

[Zafran]

Salaam

The link below shows how negative muslims are portrayed in the media

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7495384.stm

 

[Min-Fadhli-Rabii]

Jazakallah Kheiran

 

[Proud_2b_Muslim]

:salam2:
thanks for sharing , jazak Allah khayran

 

[xSharingan01x]

It's not a mere coincidence.
These kufrs use systemtic approach to engrave in the minds of their native population even in the minds of the Muslims living in those respective countries, that Muslims "are danger to the society, Muslims are evil, blah blah," They want to portray the Mujaheedin as "terrorist, criminals, animals", etc.



So the hypocrites and the Kufrs plans, so does Allah, and Allah SWT is the best of planners.

Listen to a very interesting lecture by Imam An-War Awlaki called "Battle for the hearts of mind" Some what related to the topic at hand.

 

[AmericanTeenager]

You're right, mass media has a tendency to not portray ANY group in a positive light unless it's getting a lot of funding from that group.

But of course, groups such as the Mujaheedin only make things easier for the media to do this by providing them (the media) facts to generalize from, such as using roadside or suicide bombs in heavily populated areas, and, in the case of firefights, wearing civilian clothing and hiding amongst civilians, making it impossible for the Western soldiers (who, by the way, wear very distinct uniforms to make them stand out from civilians) to differentiate between the two, thus leading to the Western soldiers' hesitation and unnecessary combat deaths.

From what I've seen on other sources, this site included though I've lost the link to the thread, it's cowardice for we Americans to utilize our Air Force, but honorable to hide in and among civilians, disguised as civilians, to make the "evil Americans" more likely to shoot the person next to you instead of you. Someone please explain that to me?

 

[Mohsin]

Hi AmericanTeen

I would like you to tell us first that what you think of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghan so that we might be able to respond better to your question.

 

[AmericanTeenager]

My opinions are two fold, so I'll start with Afghanistan: The occupation, I do not support that. I did (and still do) stand by the decision of my government to enter Afghanistan with the professed intention of capturing and bringing to justice Osama bin Laden. We were, in that case, retaliating for a brutal and devastating attack on our country, which is supported several times in the Qu'ran (fighting only when you are attacked or driven from your homes). However, once it became clear that either Osama was dead (which some Americans believe, I personally do not) or so well hidden that it would take a massive effort to find him, we should have gotten out of the Middle East completely.

Which brings us to Iraq. I will defend to the death the soldiers in the military overseas serving my country, but please do not get that confused with supporting the reasons they are over there. I (and indeed the VAST majority of Americans) wish nothing more than for all of our troops to come home. President Bush lied to the American people and the world, using Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow UN weapons inspectors to enter certain areas of his bases as a valid reason to enter Iraq in a hostile invasion, with the, again, professed goal of uncovering the WMD's (which were never found, likely because they never existed). After it was revealed that there were no WMD's, our focus suddenly had always been bringing down Saddam's regime. We accomplished that, and yet we are still there, causing even more bloodshed on both sides of the battlefield, all due to the arrogance and incompetence of the man we (Americans) foolishly not only elected but RE-elected to lead our country. And now we are paying for it with anti-American sentiments all over the world, which I can understand.

But my above post has more to do with the "honor" of fighting in planes as opposed to hiding among civilians, and perhaps I am biased because I intend to join the U.S.A.F. when I graduate college in five years, but now you all know where I stand, and if I come off as being brash or rude then I deeply apologize, I just tend to get very worked up when it comes to the men and women dying for my country, and the fact that they're dying for no apparently logical reason only makes it worse.

Insha'Allah, I've helped someone understand the American side of this conflict, to see that we're not all evil technocrats hell-bent on destruction and world domination. This war (in Iraq) was started because George W. Bush wanting to do in 2001 what his daddy couldn't do in 1991, and look at the consequences.

 

[Mohsin]

:salam2: brother,

Thanks for the clarification, now that you have made yourself clear about it I think I can put my words better into perspective.

You said you will defend the soldiers to death who are serving your country then how can you even expect others, who are being deprived of their land, their peace, their dignity and honour, their very basic human rights, their everything to not defend themselves to death. Do you expect them to give up and invite your soldiers with open arms just because they are serving your country overseas ?

I know you get worked up but think of those who are living every moment there and see their women being raped, their old being disrespected and rediculed, their peace and harmony and culture and heritage destroyed, they do not and can not see your soldiers as serving anything good (though there might be some good ones) but since they cannot target your corrupt politicians they will target those whom they see as doing the harm.

Just take a look how much freedom and peace have the war brought to Iraq.

Iraq before and after War

As for the WMD's

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.
Source

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
Source

I wanted to say a lot more but I know you just got worked up and are as helpless as I am in doing anything good for the people suffering. I know that many soldiers who are serving there might be good people but its war and people don't ask you for your histroy before aiming at you.

 

[Mohsin]

Different people different perspectives.

US author lauds suicide bombers
David Nason, New York correspondent | November 19, 2005

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as "very brave people" and used drug culture slang to describe the "amazing high" suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush.

Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."
He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Vonnegut's comments are sharply at odds with his reputation as a peace activist and his distinguished war service. He served in the US 106th Division and was captured by German forces at the Battle of the Bulge.

Taken to Dresden and held with other POWs in a disused abattoir, Vonnegut witnessed the appalling events of February 13-14, 1945, when 800 RAF Lancaster bombers firebombed the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians.
The experience inspired his book Slaughterhouse Five - the title of the novel coming from the barracks he was assigned in the POW camp. The book became an international bestseller and made Vonnegut a luminary of the US literary left.

But since Mr Bush was elected, Vonnegut's criticisms of US policy have become more and more impassioned.

In 2002, he was widely criticised for saying there was too much talk about the 9/11 attacks and not enough about "the crooks on Wall Street and in big corporations", whose conduct had been more destructive.

The following year he wrote that the US was hated around the world "because our corporations have been the principal deliverers and imposers of new technologies and economic schemes that have wrecked the self-respect, the cultures of men, women and children in so many other societies". But Vonnegut's latest comments are likely to make many people wonder if old age has finally caught up with a grand old man of American letters

Source

 

[Zaynab123]

:salam2:

jazak Allahu khayra for sharing, may Allah guide this Ummah ameen:tti_sister:

 

[Al-Kashmiri]

As-salaamu `alaykum

Here's another article,

Press Association
The Guardian
Wednesday November 14 2007
http://www.theislamblog.com/archive/study-shows-demonisation-of-muslims/

A “torrent” of negative stories has been revealed by a study of the portrayal of Muslims and Islam in the media, according to a report published yesterday.

Research into one week’s news coverage showed that 91% of articles in national newspapers about Muslims were negative. The London mayor, Ken Livingstone, who commissioned the study, said the findings were a “damning indictment” of the media and urged editors and programme makers to review the way they portray Muslims.

“The overall picture presented by the media is that Islam is profoundly different from and a threat to the west,” he said. “There is a scale of imbalance which no fair-minded person would think is right.” Only 4% of the 352 articles studied were positive, he said.

Livingstone said the findings showed a “hostile and scaremongering attitude” towards Islam and likened the coverage to the way the left was attacked by national newspapers in the early 1980s. “The charge is that there are virtually no positive or balanced images of Islam being portrayed,” he said. “I think there is a demonisation of Islam going on which damages community relations and creates alarm among Muslims.”

Among examples in the study was a report which claimed that Christmas was being banned in one area because it offended Muslims, which researchers said was “inaccurate and alarmist”. The report said that Muslims in Britain were sometimes depicted as a threat to traditional British values, and the coverage weakened government attempts to reduce extremism. The report is an amalgam of research projects individually prepared by members of a panel. Some research, examining published newspaper articles and reporting the experiences of Muslim journalists, involved Hugh Muir, of the Guardian.

 

[AmericanTeenager]

:salam2: brother,

Thanks for the clarification, now that you have made yourself clear about it I think I can put my words better into perspective.

You said you will defend the soldiers to death who are serving your country then how can you even expect others, who are being deprived of their land, their peace, their dignity and honour, their very basic human rights, their everything to not defend themselves to death. Do you expect them to give up and invite your soldiers with open arms just because they are serving your country overseas ?

I know you get worked up but think of those who are living every moment there and see their women being raped, their old being disrespected and rediculed, their peace and harmony and culture and heritage destroyed, they do not and can not see your soldiers as serving anything good (though there might be some good ones) but since they cannot target your corrupt politicians they will target those whom they see as doing the harm.

Just take a look how much freedom and peace have the war brought to Iraq.

Iraq before and after War

As for the WMD's


I wanted to say a lot more but I know you just got worked up and are as helpless as I am in doing anything good for the people suffering. I know that many soldiers who are serving there might be good people but its war and people don't ask you for your histroy before aiming at you.

I'm glad I cleared that up some with you, but I think there's a few key points I either misexplained or simply left out.
- Of course I feel sympathy for those losing their lives and suffering at the hands of our soldiers, and I certainly want all of our men and women back home as much as any other sane American.
- Certainly I expect them to defend themselves, if they didn't, I would probably have no respect whatsoever for them. People who lay down and roll over deserve exactly what they get in my opinion. However, I think they could choose to defend themselves in a way that does not essentially guarantee civilian casualties (wearing civie clothes and hiding among them, bombings etc.). Geurilla warfare? Certainly, it's been proven one of the most effective military tactics and dates back almost to the Middle Ages. And one more thing on that point: the Mujaheedin (and I will admit this is what I've heard on the news so it's probably very biased) claim to be doing what they do in th name of God. How can that be, when God in the Qu'ran specifically said to: 1) Fight a defensive war (which was violated by 9/11), and 2) Do not kill non-combatants except in extenuating circumstances (which they do whether intentionally or inadvertently, there were no U.S. military personnel killed during 9/11, and the militia in Iraq consistently detonate suicide bombers in heavily populated civilian areas, and then hide among the civilians so the US soldiers don't know who is shooting at them, so they're forced to assume that everyone not in a US uniform is the enemy.

I'm not trying to say the Iraqis have no right to defend themselves, they do. And I'm not saying we Americans are the best thing to ever happen to Iraq. We're not, in my mind, if they really wanted democrac they'd have had it a loooong time ago.

What I am saying is that the way in which the Mujaheedin fight is not only cowardly, but a violation of God's rules regarding war.

 

[palestine]

It's not a mere coincidence.
These kufrs use systemtic approach to engrave in the minds of their native population even in the minds of the Muslims living in those respective countries, that Muslims "are danger to the society, Muslims are evil, blah blah," They want to portray the Mujaheedin as "terrorist, criminals, animals", etc.



So the hypocrites and the Kufrs plans, so does Allah, and Allah SWT is the best of planners.

Listen to a very interesting lecture by Imam An-War Awlaki called "Battle for the hearts of mind" Some what related to the topic at hand.

subhanallah. you read my mind. yes they do portray the mujahideen as terrorists and criminals and then some muslims say, "oh they are not truly muslims". and i'm like hello, are you actually gonna believe this bull*!*!*!*!, they are turning you against your own brothers. duh dummies. anyways thanks for pointing that out.:salam2: