RE: Another Example of the Radical Islam Memeplex

From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 00:36:32 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Drew: "another reason I love Bucky"

    > Thanks for letting us know you are a MEMRI supporter, Joe.
    >
    You're welcome; I'm interested in equine information from the horses' mouths.
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On
    > > Behalf Of joedees@bellsouth.net Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002
    > > 2:37 PM To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: RE: Another Example of the
    > > Radical Islam Memeplex
    > >
    > >
    > > > I do not consider memri a reliable source. Their material is
    > > > overwhelmingly pro-Israeli, and their source of financing hidden.
    > > >
    > > I'm one of their hidden funding sources; I contributed $20 to their
    > > pledge drive, as I consider their work, which is letting the
    > > non-arabic- speaking world know what is being said about them in
    > > Arabic to be inportant to remaining informed about actual, as
    > > opposed to manufactured, opinions.
    > > >
    > > > IN fairness, some of my friends view their translations as
    > > > adequately accurate, but that their selection of what they
    > > > translate and post is biased.
    > > >
    > > They present the negative AND the positive; they have been
    > > extensively covering the popular revolt in Iran against conservative
    > > clerical rule, and columnists in Saudi Arabia calling for the end of
    > > hate- indoctrination in that nation's schools.
    >
    > Oh well, yes, I can see that in your mind this would represent both
    > the "negative" and the "positive"!
    >
    Actually, those are both positive, don't you think?
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    > > > There is a huge amount of disinformation being posted to the Web
    > > > re. the Middle East. Web standards of authenticity are poor,
    > > > largely, I think, due to the fact that the Web is so populist, and
    > > > much of the Web public is gullible. There are specialized lists
    > > > in which this is not the case. Our list here is pretty good on
    > > > memetics, but our discussions on the Middle East, and our use of
    > > > sources, is pretty weak, though better than many!
    > > >
    > > > So, back to the original question: what are the primary sources?
    > > >
    > > They were broadcast on middle east television, and the broadcasts
    > > are reproduced on the MEMRI site for all to see and hear.
    >
    > Joe, I could not match up the materials you posted with MEMRI site
    > broadcasts. But even if they could be matched up, we are left with
    > the matter of MEMRI's own pro-Israel, anti-Muslim bias.
    >
    No, we are left with your erroneous and preconception-fueled perception that this is so; MEMRI is actually interested in letting the wider world know what the Muslim world is saying to themselves, about themselves, about each other, and about the wider world. It does a commendable job at this task. It is voluminously documented. And all you have to do to see the streaming video of the broadcasts I transcripted for the list is to go to http://memri.org/video/ and play them for yourself.
    >
    > > > Joe -- do you remember a bunch of sound-bite quotes you put up
    > > > here about the Palestinians evacuating their lands in 47-48? I
    > > > think you got back to your 'pro-Israeli' site to try and find the
    > > > source, and that you got back a reference to yet another
    > > > derivative site, but no primary source.
    > > >
    > > The source was an Egyptian journalist, who, I'm quite sure, has more
    > > knowledge of the area's history, and more access to original news
    > > accounts of the time, than you ever will. Not everything is on the
    > > web.
    >
    > There is no need for 'everything' to be on the web: simple primary
    > source citations will do. If the material you posted is authentic,
    > there must be a primary source for it. Why don't you simply post it,
    > if it exists?
    >
    Because the 50-year-old Arabic language newspapers are not available on the Web in an english translation, but the material I gave you included the names of the publications and the day that the remarks were published in them; if you wish to go to the trouble, that should be sufficient information for you to obtain copies of them.
    > > >
    > > > It is easy, on the Web, so stuff to be invented and then
    > > > circulated enough that it takes on patina if not veracity. That
    > > > is why primary sources are essential. You will note that when
    > > > Jeremy, I, and others were discussing, for example, the WWI
    > > > liberation of Damascus, we all used primary sources. I think that
    > > > if you really want to argue your anti-Islamic case, you will have
    > > > to do the same. But you rely endlessly and naively on such as
    > > > Daniel Pipes, "ibn Warraq", the Hoover Institute, MEMRI, etc.
    > > > Could you not simply discipline yourself to use primary sources?
    > > > They do exist in profusion. Journalists publish in specific
    > > > newspapers, which have specific dates. Academics publish in
    > > > Journals and books, with dates, publishers and titles. Experts
    > > > give talks at conferences that publish proceedings, on certain
    > > > dates and places.
    > > >
    > > Actually, the sources I use, such as FOREIGN AFFAIRS, POLICY
    > > REVIEW, FOREIGN POLICY, THE WILSON QUARTERLY, THE
    > > MIDDLE EAST FORUM, MEMRI, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, THE
    > > NEW YORKER, HARPERS, etc. are among the most respected (by the
    > > unagendaed and unbiased) in the field.
    >
    > Yes, some of these are respected, and others are not. It is a mix. I
    > notice, with delight, that you have dropped references to Daniel Pipes
    > and "ibn Warraq." On the whole, the sources you list here are
    > definitely a cut or two above them. > >
    >
    Actually, Daniel Pipes is a respected source by those who don't mind unvarnished truth being told, as is Ibn Warraq; FREE INQUIRY magazine, a contemporary cornerstone of intellectual thought, respects Ibn Warraq enough to associate itself and its Prometheus Books press with him, and the Wall Street Journal lauds Daniel Pipes as "an authoritative commentator on the Middle East". BTW, here are some quotes about MEMRI:

    "MEMRI is an invaluable source for anyone seriously interested in the Middle East."
        -Professor Bernard Lewis, Princeton University, September
        3, 2001
    "The single most important resource for understanding what is happening in the Middle East today."
        -Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize winner, October 4,
        2001
    "MEMRI, an invaluable research service."
        -Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times Pulitzer Prize
        winner, October 16, 2001
    "MEMRI is the most important research source for the Arab world of which I know and it has been immensely helpful to me and to just about every other serious person who writes about the Middle East."
        -Martin Peretz, Editor-in-Chief and Chairman, The New
        Republic, October 9, 2001
    "I am full of admiration for the work MEMRI has done in its dedicated exposure of Arab antisemitism. Until MEMRI undertook its effort to review and translate articles from the Arab press, there was only dim public awareness of this problem in the United States. Thanks to MEMRI, this ugly phenomenon has been unmasked, and numerous American writers have called attention to it."
        - U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, May 1, 2002
    "If there were justice in the universe, the Middle East Media Research Institute would already have been awarded some kind of special-achievement Pulitzer Prize. MEMRI has pioneered the careful translation, and dissemination to European and American audiences, of print and broadcast news sources in the Arab world."
        -David Tell, The Weekly Standard, June 12, 2002
    " the excellent Middle East Media Research Institute"
        -Former CIA director James Woolsey, June 10, 2002
    "Plenty of journalists leaned heavily on MEMRI's translations, citing 'the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute.' In fact, 'invaluable' has been written so often before MEMRI's name that one could have been forgiven for thinking the word was part of the name. MEMRI served as an antidote to darkness, as a way not to be ignorant. The veil has been lifted by MEMRI."
        -Jay Nordlinger, National Review, May 6, 2002
    "MEMRI does an outstanding job of reviewing the Arab language press. Knowing what is being said about America and Israel is critical to understanding the Middle East. Holding Arab leaders accountable for failure to refute outrageous lies about America and Israel is an important part of our public diplomacy efforts and ultimately our Middle East policy."
        - U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, February, 2002
    "All these excerpts are found on the invaluable Web site www.memri.org from the original documents themselves. Those documents tell more of the truth than the esteemed New York Times' 'spun' articles. Let's be sure we, at least, are not as bamboozled as our leaders now seem to be."
        -Kenneth Adelman, FOX NEWS, May 15, 2002
    "I have always considered MEMRI to be an invaluable research tool."
        -Richard Cohen, nationally syndicated columnist, October 5,
        2001

    >
    > > > You do a lot of cutting
    > and pasting, but severely weaken your case by > > depending on
    > derivative, inexpert, or biased sources, or, indeed, > > pasting
    > things without any references at all. > > > Actually, I've seen a
    > shovel-load more referencing from myself than I've > ever seen from
    > you - so much, that people have actually complained > about it here.
    >
    > I don't think so, Joe. Can you cite any complaint about my references?
    >
    It's kinda hard to remember any of them, since they are so few and far between; most of what you list is simply your unsupported opinion. In fact, why don't you LIST some of your authoritative sources for us, hmmmm?
    >
    > I know you THINK you give a lot of sources, but compromised sources,
    > simply, aren't worth anything, which is why I keep asking for primary
    > ones, if you want to be taken seriously. It's your choice, of course.
    > No one can force you to provide primary sources, and I don't expect my
    > reminders to you will.
    >
    The fact that I provide sources from academically respected scholars, published in academically respected magizines, should more than suffice. It is certainly more than you do, because such sources would have to actually exist for you to be able to cite them. This is the reason that the only people who take you seriously are those who share your perspectival; biases. But, I know; your mind is made up, and you refuse to be confused by logic, evidence and facts.
    >
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
    >

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 15 Dec 2002 - 00:37:40 GMT