Monday, January 28, 2013

Syrian "Jihadists versus secular activists" in the New York Times

Read this article in the Times.  It leaves you with the impression that there is a group of "armed secular activists" fighting in Syria.  And notice that the armed gangs of the Free Syrian Army are conflated in the article with "secular activists".  And the Free Syrian Army is still referred to as "secular" although almost all of its battalions are named after Islamic-themed names or after oil and gas kings and princes--who are not, incidentally--secular.   And then this about Jahbat An-Nusrah:  "The Syrian opposition is ambivalent about the group".  What do you mean ambivalent?  Both George Sabra of the Syrian National Council and Ahmad Ma`adh Al-Khatib (the foe of Facebook and masturbation--see a previous post here about his writings) publicly defended Jabhat An-Nusrah and castigated the US for its terrorist categorization.  How is that ambivalent?  The ignorant Western media is so stubborn in its insistence of the early (fictional) narrative about the Syrian "revolution", that the attempt to fit present-day facts and realities into that narrative have become quite comical.