Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Larisa Alexandrovna: Michelle Malkin's Human Rights Straw Man - Selective Outrage on Iran Atrocities

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 12:46 AM
Original message
Larisa Alexandrovna: Michelle Malkin's Human Rights Straw Man - Selective Outrage on Iran Atrocities
Edited on Mon Jun-25-07 01:22 AM by Hissyspit
Malkin hypocritical in being selective in her outrage over human rights abuses. In addition, why is the word 'police' in English and not Farsi on the Iranian police uniforms? You have to read the entire posts to get a sense of the arguments, not just the parts I have excerpted for my post here. Although some of the comments left at her site miss this point, Larisa's posting to the atlargely.com site concerning Malkin's hypocrisy BRINGS MORE attention to the Iranian government's outrages. (ON EDIT: Iran photo links have been broken?) - H'spit

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/06/michelles-straw.html#comments

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/06/michelles-straw.html#comments

Michelle Malkin builds a human rights straw-man and feels no shame...

- snip -

Okay, I have to post about this. Michelle Malkin is busy building a moral straw man for some reason in order to declare something about the lack of Abu Ghraib type of outrage by the US media and US citizens over repression in Iran. She writes in her AEI mouth-piece blog as follows:

"Question: Will these photos be blared across the front pages of the international media with as much disgust and condemnation as the photos of Abu Ghraib or the manufactured Gitmo Koran-flushing riots?
Answer: Fat chance."

Let me be the first to tell Ms. Malkin that being concerned for human rights, really and truly concerned does not depend on the color of the victim's skin or their religious background. It is an absolute moral position. This is not something Malkin can understand, because her outrage is purchased. However, the reason there was so much national outrage over Abu Ghraib is because in the pictures shown, there were not masked Iranian police committing atrocities, rather, they were US soldiers committing atrocities. People feel more culpable because they are directly contributing to this through their own money via taxes, and the horrors depicted are stunningly graphic and obscene on levels I cannot even comprehend. I hope she understand the difference, but that would be asking too much of her and her ilk.

Now, the other big issue I have with Malkin's usual noise festival is that the context for me suggests that in order to prove substantially outraged by Iranian repression, a person must support war against Iran.

ABOVE LINK FOR IRAN AND ABU GHRAIB PHOTOS POSTED BY LARISA ALEXANDROVNA

Here is what Malkin wrote about Abu Ghraib and the photos... a small collection of her concern for human rights... Again, the strange comparison:

"Watching the news in my hotel room before my speech, I just saw CNN air a few of the new, highly inflammatory Abu Ghraib photos now making the rounds.

No pixelation of the nude prisoners in the photos. No disclaimers about paying respect to members of the US military who will be endangered by publication of the pics. The Washington Post used the opportunity to republish Abu Ghraib photos and video it obtained in April 2004.

Note please that Malkin is concerned that nude elements of the photos are visible...

From a Comments response by Larisa:

Ali,

Thank you for thoughtful response. Let me be clear, I do not support the action of the Iranian regime at all. I agree completely that they violate human rights and civil liberties and while I am not a scholar of Islam, my opinion is not far from yours with regard to how the Iranian establishment has used Islam to justify their abuses. We appear to be in agreement sir. So I am not sure what it is that I wrote that would make you think otherwise.

- snip -

She is outraged at how these protesters are being treated. Right? She has no problem, however, defending Gitmo, she has no problem defending the bombing of Lebanon. In fact, Ms. Malkin has no problem with concentration camps for Japanese Americans during WWII. Clearly, Ms. Malkin has no problem with human rights abuses. So why this particular abuse? Why does this particular abuse send her screaming, when the likes of Abu Ghraib did not make her shake in horror all the while she complained of nudity being shown in the photos?

MORE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. "Moral equivalency" is the electric buggy whip of a post-Cheney world.
Which we're on the verge of.

Keep flogging the "but look what THEY do" meme, Michelle. It proves that you don't stand for what
America stands for.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent Democrat Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 12:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Malkin has no problem with Japanese internment during WWII.....
eventhough she would find herself locked away in one of those camps if she were around during WWII.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. She would be one of the people claiming that it can't happen here
as she is being carted off to an internment camp...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. She would be sucking up for "preferred" treatment. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Common Sense Party Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Did the U.S. imprison Filipinos during WWII?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent Democrat Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I don't know.....
But knowing how culturally astute we Americans are, I doubt they could tell the differences between Japanese and Filipinos back then. Kind of like how in the present we think that Iranians and Arabs are the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-25-07 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-26-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
8. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC