Skip to main content

Walid Phares: CEO of Arab Neocon Bootlickers

I just watched a debate between Arab neocon and "terrorism 'expert'", Walid Phares, and the editor in chief of Al Quds newspaper, Abdul Bari' Atwan, on Al Jazeera's Al Ittijah il Mu'aakis (Opposing Directions). The debate was about terrorism and journalism, as well as "free speech", a hot topic these days. As soon as I get the transcript, I'll be writing about it. However, the entire debate confirmed my theory about that bald suckup: he's nothing but a simple neocon bootlicker. Yeah, I know it sounds harsh, considering that he is older than I am, but politics knows of no age, so I can bash whoever I want, even Dumbya Boosh himself.

I can't believe that Al Jazeera bothered to host the rightwing nut. He himself claimed that Al Jazeera is "jihad TV" for some reason, and asserts that it has ties with Al Qaeda. I was surprised that this was the first issue brought to the table, on the distribution of Al Qaeda tapes by Al Jazeera. CNN and other networks do so as well, so Al Jazeera is definitely no terrorist network.

Anyways, getting back to Phares, I have to hand it to him: he sure knows how to talk Arabic, though it's kind of unnerving to hear someone talk so negatively about Arabs and Islam in the Arabic language itself. Abdul Bari', however, responded quite nicely, placing a moderate view and counteracting the words that Phares kept putting into his mmouth. He was technically losing the argument before it even started, which is pretty much what Wafa' Sultan and this Syrian diplomat living in the U.S. (in another show, but I'm still looking for the transcript) do when they find themselves losing ground.

I'll just highlight one of his main arguments. Abdul Bari' claimed that he, like other journalists around the Arab world, condemn the routine abuse and killings done against journalists who make themselves known for standing up against corruption, etc. However, Phares, being the asshole that he is, asked Abdul Bari' who killed those journalists, and suggested at the same time inquisitively that the CIA killed these journalists, hence putting a load of bullshit into Abdul Bari's mouth. Abdul Bari' then responded, calmly, by saying that he doesn't know who killed them, but was opposed nevertheless to those who killed them, "even if it were my father".

However, my favorite argument, in which Abdul Bari' handed Phares's cojones back to him on a silver platter, was when they brought about the issue of "free speech" and the jailed journalist, Taysir Alluni, who was arrested by a Spanish court while he was taking shelter in the nation he and his family dwell in (Spain, duh). Abdul Bari' argues that the first course of action the Americans took while securing Baghdad and "spreading freedom and democracy" was forcing the closure of the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad. Walid Phares, with his sleazy, smiley attitude, couldn't rebut that, but he rebutted the issue of Taysir Alluni with the notion that he is being tried by the court of law... wait. When journalists in Egypt and Saudi Arabia who voice for the neocons are being shut up, the issue is "free speech", but when an Arab journalist is being imprisoned under no clear charges, it's a "court of law" thing... Ok, I get it. I get the double-standards now. Thanks a lot, Phares. I never knew you were such a hypocrite, but thanks for telling me anyways. I know better now.

Phares-boy wasn't able to rebut the fact that Arab journalists in Britian are being screened to the photo in Britian, considering his relative self-hating and anti-Islamic stance (I know he's not a Muslim, but he is no friend of any Arabs). The debate ended with Phares making a final smart-aleck comment that didn't deserve to be rebutted, because it was simple rhetoric for "freedom" and whatnot.

By the way, Phares is the member of a public relations firm known as Benador Associates, which also has an impressive neocon clientele, wielding birds of his feather like Amir Taheri, Richard Perle, Alexander Haig Jr., and Hassan Mneimneh. Phares talks about counter-terrorism to mask his utter anti-Islamic stance, and speaks of a strong association between Al Qaida and Arab governments, which of course was never the case. Personally, I wanted to go on TV and hand him back his ass and throw him out the window for the nonsense that he says, but hey, it's a free world, right?

God bless, and remember that idiots deserve the short end of the stick.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...