The Emperor's
New Clothes (TENC) *
www.tenc.net
You may send this
article or the
link to any person or Internet list. You may post any TENC
article on the Internet as long as you cite Emperor's Clothes
as the source, credit the author(s), and state the URL, which in
this case is
http://emperors-clothes.com/kristof4-print.htm
Subscribe to the TENC Newsletter -- Receive articles from Emperor's
Clothes. To join, send a blank email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject
line to:
emperorsclothes@tenc.net You will receive a confirmation
email within a day. (If you don't, please check your email
screening filter.) Please reply to that email and add the
Newsletter address to your personal address book: emperorsclothes@tenc.net
Our readers make TENC possible. Please donate!
============================================
How The New York Times
Lied About Egypt
by Jared Israel and Samantha Criscione
We charge that the media falsified
coverage of the conflict in Egypt, and we prove it in the case of the
top human rights columnist for The New York Times, Nicholas D.
Kristof, showing that his eye-witness report and video about the
fighting between anti-Mubarak forces and their opponents in Tahrir
Square February 2 constitute unbridled deceit.
Part 4: The videographer's art,
enfin
* * *
Appendix: "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs
at Tahrir Square," by Nicholas D. Kristof, The New York Times,
February 2, 2011
Embedded video: "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters,"
by Nicholas D. Kristof and Jaron Gilinsky, The New York Times,
February 2, 2011
* * *
The other parts of the
series are:
"Part
1: A picture can refute a thousand lies"
"Part
2: To see a world in a grain of sand and mendacity in a thumbnail"
"Part
3: Better lying through technology"
============================================
As we have seen in the previous parts of this series, Nicholas D.
Kristof lies in his column, "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs
at Tahrir Square" (see
Part 1), and lies and attempts to cover up
his lies in his video, "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters" (see
Part 2
and
Part 3), even before the video begins.
Therefore it is only fitting that, for a change of pace, Kristof
should begin said video with an absurdity.
The video opens with some men chanting in support of
then President Hosni Mubarak. The stage thus set, Nicholas D.
Kristof appears on screen and proclaims that:
"Mubarak today seems to have sent in the thugs to try to restore his role to Tahrir Square. There have been people pouring in with exactly the same talking points, with very similar signs."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- New York Times video, "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters," 0:17, embedded below
Aside from the fact that in
telling us that Mubarak wants to "restore his role to
Tahrir Square," Kristof sounds as if he is translating 'restore his
control of Tahrir Square' from some other
language into English using Babel Fish -- aside from that, there is a wee
difficulty with Kristof's opening remarks.
As you may recall Kristof begins his New
York Times column by stating that he was "watching" as:
"Pro-government thugs at Tahrir Square used clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors on Wednesday to try to crush Egypt's democracy movement [...]."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs at Tahrir Square," The New York Times, February 2, 2011, posted in full in the Appendix
So Kristof opens his column by saying that the men he calls
"pro-government thugs" attacked with "machetes, swords and straight
razors," but he opens his video by saying they attacked with "talking
points" and "signs."
========================================
Would that be 'Weapons of Talk Destruction' (WTD)?
========================================
In the real world, if people "used clubs, machetes, swords and
straight razors [...] to try to crush Egypt's democracy movement,"
they would not also try to crush said supposed movement by talking, and
therefore, except in a farce, if Mr. Mubarak had mobilized
"pro-government thugs" for lethal attacks he would not have worried
about getting them to memorize "exactly the same talking points," i.e.,
arguments, or indeed any talking points at all.
By saying that "the thugs" are "pouring in" in order "to
crush Egypt's democracy movement" with "talking
points" and "signs,"
Kristof invites a cartoon parody in which said "thugs," although
supposedly carrying "machetes,
swords and straight razors," torture their victims
by endlessly repeating the same arguments and waving similar signs until
said victims break down and renounce
democracy.
The problem here -- and, as we shall see, this is Kristof's main
problem throughout the video -- is that during his day in Tahrir Square
he could not come up with any photos or video footage of "Mubarak's
Supporters" doing anything but talking. No "gun."
[1] No "clubs,
machetes, swords and straight razors." No intimidation. Not even a
mean look. As we have seen (in parts 2 and 3
[2]), even the threatening image he used for the
thumbnail representing this video about "Mubarak's Supporters" is in
fact a laboriously doctored photo of Mubarak's most extreme opponents.
Faced with this obstacle -- the discontinuity between what he
claims and what is true -- Kristof turns to what
we have seen is his customary solution: he makes something up.
====================================
Footage inserted to deceive
====================================
Kristof says that Mubarak has sent "the thugs" "pouring" into Tahrir
Square immediately after the video opens with footage of a group of
pro-Mubarak demonstrators chanting. His obvious intention: to get us to
believe these are some of "the thugs." Yet all we actually see is
a dozen men chanting while one holds a hand-made sign, so why should we
believe Kristof's accusation?
What Kristof needs is some supporting evidence,
and therefore at
0:22 the video jump-cuts from a shot of Kristof telling us about "the
thugs" "pouring in" to a shot of an unidentified man, walking and
talking on a cell phone, holding what appears to be a police billy club.
The star of this inserted footage is the apparent billy club. It
is the video's only image of a possible weapon, and, inserted here,
seconds after we have been shown Mubarak supporters chanting, and have
been told that Mubarak has "sent in the thugs," the billy club is
obviously intended to convey the impression that "Mubarak's Supporters"
are armed. (Although keep in mind, Kristof has not shown us any of
the "machetes, swords and straight razors" that he claims he was
"watching" in Tahrir Square. Nor does he ever.)
The insertion of the footage at 0:22 is an attempt to manipulate our
perception, but it does not stand up to scrutiny:
A) Since we do not know when or where the man with
what appears to be a billy club was filmed or by whom, there is no
evidence of a
spatial or temporal connection between him and the pro-Mubarak
demonstrators shown in the opening shot.
B) Therefore we have no reason to believe this lone
man is connected to "Mubarak's Supporters" or for that matter to the
anti-Mubarak forces, nor have we any reason to believe that he is a
"thug." Indeed, we have no way of knowing who he is -- a policeman
possibly?
What Kristof is relying on here is that, snowed by the
status of The New York Times, we will suspend our critical
faculties and accept that Kristof has shown us armed "thugs." In
fact, he has only shown us that he and his associate, Mr. Gilinsky, who
is credited with doing Kristof's camera work (or "videography," as the
video credits put it, rather pretentiously
[3])
are dishonest film editors, thus foreshadowing the dishonesty that is
yet to come.
=========================================
When there's statutory duty to be done (to be done),
a Kristof cameraman's lot is not a happy one (happy one).
-- With apologies to
Gilbert & Sullivan,
Pirates of Penzance
=========================================
In his Times column Kristof tells us that the
pro-Mubarak people ---
"singled out foreign journalists [for attack -- TENC], especially camera crews, presumably because they didn't want their brutality covered."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- See text of Kristof's Times column in the Appendix
--- indicating that they
fought not to be videotaped displaying their
brutality.
But he also writes that when he and cameraman Gilinsky tried to
videotape an interview with two "pro-democracy" sisters ---
"thugs swarmed us again. I appeased the members of the mob by interviewing them (as one polished his razor), and the two sisters managed again to slip away [...] ."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- ibid.
--- indicating that they
fought
unless they were videotaped displaying their brutality, thus
putting the poor cameraman in the position of the Fool in King
Lear
[4], trapped, if we
may mix our metaphors, between Scylla and Charybdis.
Kristof would want to prove both these claims by showing us the
footage in which the pro-Mubarak people threatened his own cameraman
(at 1:17 in the video Kristof says this did happen) as well as the
footage where (he claims) he started to interview the two alleged
"pro-democracy" sisters, whereupon the "thugs," so-called, "swarmed
us again," and Kristof "appeased [...] the mob by interviewing them
(as one polished his razor.)"
Since according to Kristof all this happened while his
videographeur was at work, camera rolling, this sensational
material, which would provide such strong evidence for the case
Kristof is trying to make, should be in this video, right? It
has to be in this video, right? Especially that guy
polishing the razor. Don't leave him out!
Let us investigate.
In the video there are two interviews. The only one
involving a group is the first, which starts at 0:27. In it, Kristof
interviews an English-speaking man identified as Ismail Farouk, an
engineer, while a small group of men chants enthusiastically in the
background.
The problem is, during said interview:
A) The two supposed sisters are nowhere to be seen. What happened to
the crowd of "Mubarak's Supporters" who supposedly threatened to
attack while Kristof and Gilinsky were supposedly filming an
interview with the two sisters, forcing them to interview said
"Supporters" instead, while one "polished his razor," all of which
Kristof and Gilinsky supposedly got on videotape?
B) Neither Farouk nor any of his associates pressure Kristof to
interview them (as Kristof claims) or not
to interview them (as Kristof also claims). Rather it is Kristof who
seems hyper as he questions Farouk, while Farouk appears relaxed and
focused.
C) None of the pro-Mubarak people filmed during the interview,
or indeed elsewhere in the video, threaten Kristof or seem the least
bit hostile, although he is manifestly a Western reporter, and
therefore, according to Kristof, they should be primed to assault
him (for one reason or the opposite).
D) Mr. Farouk does not rant against the anti-Mubarak forces, but
speaks calmly and thoughtfully. Too thoughtfully for Kristof,
apparently, as demonstrated by a little editing trick Kristof and
cameraman Gilinsky pull off at 0:57-0:58.
Kristof has just asked Farouk, "Do you think that the police and the
soldiers, should they remove the protesters or not?" Farouk
appears to reply, "I hope that. For all Egypt, we need stability,"
which would mean, 'I hope that the police and soldiers do remove the
protesters, for the sake of stability.' Not a statement
suggesting that Farouk means to lead a charge to drive away the
anti-Mubarak people, to be sure, but not inconsistent with the
accusation that Kristof (and all the rest of the media) have made,
that, as Kristof puts it in his
Times column, the pro-Mubarak people "arrived in busloads that
mysteriously were waved past checkpoints," as part of a scheme to
justify police and military action to crush the anti-Mubarak forces.
So: in these remarks of Farouk's, has Kristof supplied the first
piece of actual evidence to support his case? No, he has not.
We do not know what Mr. Farouk said to Kristof -- only Farouk and
Kristof and cameraman Gilinsky know that -- but, what is almost as
helpful, we know that he did
not say, "I hope that. For all Egypt, we need
stability." We know that because, if one looks carefully
between 0:57 and 0:58, one will see that, immediately after Farouk
utters the word "that," there is a visually evident break.
Something has been cut out.
To be precise, Kristof and Gilinsky have removed whatever Farouk
and possibly also Kristof said, whether he or they spoke for a
minute or an hour, between Farouk's words, "I hope that," and his
words, "For all Egypt we need stability."
We can get a clue as to what has been cut out from an
earlier exchange between Kristof and Farouk. At 0:31 Kristof asks,
"Do you think the demonstrations will be over
now, the protests will be over, do you think, or not?" and Farouk
answers, "I think the destruction now is finished." (Our
emphasis -- TENC)
In this exchange, Farouk answers like a thoughtful
Egyptian, not a media-informed Westerner. The Western media
created the impression that there were demonstrators (who were
idealistic and peaceful) and then there was burning and looting (carried
out by persons unknown), but Egyptians know that the so-called
demonstrators were the ones who did the burning and looting.
[5] So when
Farouk is asked if the
demonstrations will be over, Farouk answers, quite reasonably,
"I think the destruction is now finished." (Our
emphasis -- TENC)
Therefore, regarding what Kristof and Gilinsky have
cut out between 0:57 and 0:58, it is very likely that, when Kristof asked Farouk if the
police and military should now remove the protesters, Farouk said
something like:
'I hope that the police and military will put an end to all violent actions and only permit peaceful expression of opinions. President Mubarak has promised reforms, but for the government to institute these reforms, for all Egypt, we need stability.'
These remarks would also be consistent with what an oil worker tells
Kristof later in the video (quoted below), and with comments that
pro-Mubarak people make in a Time
magazine article that presents both sides of an Egyptian street
debate on whether Mubarak should be forced out of office.
[6]
Notice that if Farouk did
indeed say something along these lines, he would not be calling for a
police and military crackdown on dissent, as Kristof's tricky video
editing makes it appear; he would be calling for the country to return
to normal, which, we believe, was the desire of most Egyptians and still
is.
The fact remains, whatever Mr. Farouk said,
Kristof/Gilinsky have cut out a chunk of his words to make it appear
that Farouk called for a police and military crackdown on free speech.
This so-called 'journalism' is shameful; Nicholas D. Kristof will get a
third Pulitzer.
E) Notice that neither Mr. Farouk nor his
associates are armed. This certainly presents a nasty
difficulty for Mr. Kristof: nowhere in the video is
anyone shown carrying a weapon of any kind (except for
that footage of the man holding what appears to be a billy club, which
Kristof/Gilinksy inserted earlier, and which was filmed
who-knows-where-and-when, or by whom, and which depicts who-knows-who
doing who-knows-what.)
Remember, in his New York Times column Kristof told us he was "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs at Tahrir
Square." (Again, that is the title of the column.) Remember,
he had his own camera, plus he had cameraman Gilinsky with a video
camera by his side. These
fellows are from
The New York Times, so one imagines they know how to shoot a
picture. And remember that Nicholas D. Kristof has told us, in his
column:
"But when I tried to interview them [i.e., the two "pro-democracy" alleged sisters, who are the heroines of his Times column -- TENC] on video, thugs swarmed us again. I appeased the members of the mob by interviewing them (as one polished his razor), and the two sisters managed again to slip away and continue toward the center of Tahrir Square [...]."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- See the full text of Kristof's column in the Appendix
"On video" -- those are his own words.
But somehow in the video we never see any of "Mubarak's
Supporters" interrupting an interview with two women and aggressively
demanding that Kristof interview them instead, let alone 'polishing his
razor'
while being interviewed. We never see any of "Mubarak's Supporters" doing anything but
chanting, holding signs, and talking, thoughtfully.
F) During the
interview, Farouk's colleagues chant in the background. They are
not threatening; they chant enthusiastically and cheerfully, and they
carry a motley assortment of hand made signs -- hand made,
that is not stamped out in bureaucratic uniformity by some government
agency, as Kristof implies in his column.
=========================================
Evaluation of Kristof's evidence
=========================================
So how do the accusations Kristof makes in his New York Times
column hold up against the video evidence so far?
Well, the men he has described as a mob of threatening thugs in fact
appear calm and friendly. Their body language is not threatening
and their facial expressions are not harsh. They seem earnest,
just as one might expect from Egyptians naively trying to enlighten
foreign reporters, and, through them, to reach Western audiences,
unaware that Kristof and his associates will attack them whatever they
say, making things up as required to fit their assignment of smearing
those who oppose the anti-Mubarak forces.
And allow us to repeat,
the pro-Mubarak people have no weapons. Contrary to Kristof's
assertions, none of them are armed; none of them threatens any women;
none of them polishes any razors.
Contrary to the claims Kristof makes in his column
about what he supposedly filmed in Tahrir Square on February 2, in
fact the people in his video "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters" are unarmed
except for their voices: they are armed with words, not weapons.
Period.
Following his first and quite unthuglike exchange with Mr. Farouk
(indeed, in this first exchange it is Kristof not Farouk who seems
pushy, although Kristof is also not polishing a razor) Kristof addresses
us again, claiming that the "pro-Mubarak forces" have tried to break his
cameraman's camera. (Apparently this has occurred when "Mubarak's
Supporters" were in their no-interviews mode.)
If Kristof is not lying, why does the video contain zero footage of this
supposed incident, which would be so useful to his argument?
Indeed, why does all the footage in the video show the
pro-Mubarak people acting perfectly cordial? Are the pro-Mubarak
people violently hostile only off-camera? (But that unlikely
explanation won't work because, remember, Kristof claims he videotaped
"Mubarak's Supporters" being violent.)
Really, why should we not
conclude that Nicholas D. Kristof is lying?
But let us go on.
Kristof next shows us a conversation with another of "Mubarak's
Supporters," an oil worker identified as Mohamad Magdi, who again is a)
not armed, b) not hostile, and c) articulate.
Mr. Magdi says about Mubarak:
"I want him to stick to the end and then there will be a new president chosen by the people. But he should go out in dignity. He has helped this country."
-- New York Times video, "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters," 1:28, embedded below
We then watch Mr. Magdi argue
in Arabic with Kristof's two alleged sisters. During this
exchange, a) nobody is arguing on Magdi's side (that is, contrary to
what Kristof claims in his column, the two sisters are not subjected to
a mob gang-up) and b) the two sister's are entirely unintimidated.
If anything, they are scornfully mocking.
Mr. Magdi is
translated saying that nobody can sleep or go to work, apparently
because of the disruption caused by people burning down buildings and
rioting in the streets. He then says: "Let it be a smooth
transition instead of destruction," meaning, 'Let Mubarak finish his
term and then Egypt can move to a new administration without people
burning and looting half the country' (as the anti-Mubarak "protesters"
had in fact been doing; see footnote [5]), to which the women scornfully (not timidly)
reply
not that Mr. Magdi is wrong about what anti-Mubarak forces
have been doing, but, "Enough of fear!" Apparently this means,
'Throw caution and the country to the winds, you wimp.' This by
the way echoes an exchange in the Time
magazine article, "Cairo Street Debate,"
in which
someone objecting to the massive
destruction by the so-called protesters says, "Look at it --- look at the
looting, look at the burned buildings," to which a woman replies, "So
what? We will clean it up and rebuild it." And adds, "What are you
getting so angry about?"
(See footnote
[6].)
As if the looting and burning and/or other destruction of buildings all
over Egypt, including police and fire stations, libraries, hospitals,
shopping centers, jails, private residences, the National Council for
Women, the Egyptian Museum, and so on -- as if all this were of no
consequence. (See footnote
[5].)
Mr. Magdi's sentiments sound neither pre-programmed nor thuggish,
and remember: he is neither threatening nor armed.
Nevertheless, after Magdi's interview and argument with the two women,
Kristof appears again and tells us, referring to
"Mubarak's Supporters":
"One had a machete; another had a straight razor; several had sticks; there's stone throwing in various places. It seems to be an effort to create violence by these provocateurs and thereby perhaps create a pretext for a crackdown or at least simply scare people out of the democracy movement."
-- New York Times video, "Meeting Mubarak's Supporters," 1:50, embedded below
Since cameraman Gilinsky has filmed Kristof telling us
the above in
Tahrir Square; since said cameraman has filmed a couple of groups of
pro-Mubarak people with signs, as well as two interviews and an
argument (Mr. Magdi and the scornful ladies) -- since, in other
words, Kristof and Gilinsky have been filming hither and yon where
the action is, how come Kristof has no photos or video footage of
mobs of thuggish pro-Mubarak people attacking with swords or machetes or
straight razors or clubs, or at least pushing and
jostling, or at the very least threatening somebody, anybody?
Why does nothing Kristof tells
us correspond to anything he shows us in
the video?
In the very title of his
column, Kristof claims he was "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs at
Tahrir Sq." Pray tell, in what world did Nicholas D. Kristof
'watch'
them?
======================
A tale of two worlds
======================
It would appear, the problem is that Nicholas D. Kristof occupies
two worlds.
In one of these worlds, so-called "pro-Mubarak" people -- that is,
people opposed to the forces that have created a reign of terror,
burning and looting all over the country, intimidating ordinary people
with a goal of bringing Egypt under clerical fascist rule -- want to
show people outside Egypt that most Egyptians oppose the destruction and
want to convince honest people among the Tahrir Square "protesters" to
part company with the destroyers. This world could be found in
Tahrir Square on February 2, but although its existence is confirmed by
what people say and do in Kristof's video, Kristof tries to convince us
that this world does not exist.
In the other world, lethally armed pro-Mubarak "thugs" threaten
timid but brave "middle-age[d]" sisters, break cameras and attack the
anti-Mubarak people with razors, machetes and swords. This world
could not be found anywhere at any time except in the heads of Nicholas
D. Kristof and his cameraman, as well as Western leaders and other
Western reporters; nevertheless Kristof tries to convince us
that this world does
exist and that he saw it and filmed it, even though he shows us
no footage of this world -- none at all.
Having of necessity filmed the real world of pro-Mubarak
talkers, Kristof tells us about the imaginary world of pro-Mubarak
killers, with the result that his video exemplifies the doublethink
about which George Orwell writes in
1984. (You know, where they show us war and they tell
us we have been shown peace.) Here we are shown thoughtful discourse,
while we are told we have been shown murderous mob intimidation.
You say you are worried about democracy in Egypt? With media
like The New York Times, how can we have democracy in the U.S.?
-- Jared Israel and Samantha Criscione
Emperor's Clothes
============================================
"Meeting Mubarak's Supporters,"
video by Nicholas D. Kristof and Jaron Gilinsky, The New York Times,
February 2, 2011
| If your browser does not show this video, it can be viewed on the New York Times website, at http://video.nytimes.com/video/...-supporters.html |
==========================================
Emperor's Clothes Needs Your Donation!
==========================================
Our work depends on donations. If you find
Emperor's Clothes useful, please help us to pay website,
research and technical expenses. Every donation helps, big or
small!
Our best is yet to come!
Here's how to make a donation to Emperor's Clothes:
* Or donate using the Emperor's Clothes
secure server
* Or send a check to:
Emperor's Clothes
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321
USA
* Or donate by calling 1 617 858-0944
If you get voice mail, please leave your number
and we will call you back.
Thank you!
============================================
Footnotes and Further Reading
============================================
[1]
In his column, Kristof claims that at least one of "Mubarak's
Supporters" had a "gun." He writes that on
February 1 (the day before the fighting in Tahrir Square):
"One man, a suspected police infiltrator, was caught with a gun on Tuesday quite close to me, and I was impressed with the way [anti-Mubarak -- TENC] volunteers disarmed him and dragged him to an army unit --- all while forming a protective cordon around him to keep him from being harmed."
[Our emphasis -- TENC]
-- "Watching Thugs With Razors and Clubs at Tahrir Square," The New York Times, February 2, 2011, posted in full in the Appendix
Notice that Kristof claims he was an eye witness. Why
then doesn't he show us a photo of this sensational capture in his
column, or include footage of this remarkable supposed
event in his video? A possible reason: it did not happen, or it did
not happen in the way he describes. For example, perhaps there was
no gun; perhaps the man was not a plain clothes policeman; perhaps,
having no weapon, he was not disarmed but was beaten senseless for
expressing unacceptable views, as happened to the Mubarak supporter in the pictures below:
 |
| Source:
http://framework.latimes.com/2011/03/02/behind-the-stage-at-tahrir-square-in-cairo/#/4
Photo #5 (C) Michael Robinson Chavez/Los Angeles Times 2011. Reproduced here for educational purposes, for Fair Use Only. |
 |
| Source:
http://framework.latimes.com/2011/01/28/protests-in-egypt/#/19
Photo #20 (C) Michael Robinson Chavez/Los Angeles Times 2011. Reproduced here for educational purposes, for Fair Use Only. |
The two photos above were taken
by a Los Angeles Times photographer on February 8 or
9, more than a week after the famous fighting in Tahrir Square.
The caption reads:
"A pro-Mubarak supporter, who made his way into the center of a massive anti-regime crowd, is silenced after shouting his support for the beleaguered president." [Our emphasis -- TENC]
Silenced for "shouting his support." So according to the
L.A. Times, the man's crime was speech.
As you can see in the color photograph, the man's forehead is
dented and
discolored. Apparently he has been struck with a blunt instrument.
[2] "Part 2: To see a world in a grain of sand and mendacity in a
thumbnail" is at
http://emperors-clothes.com/kristof2.htm
"Part 3: Better lying
through technology" is at
http://emperors-clothes.com/kristof3.htm
[3] At the end of Kristof's video, the credits read, "Videography: Jaron
Gilinsky."
[4] King Lear, Act I, Scene IV
Fool: I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are:
they'll have me whipped for speaking true, thou'lt
have me whipped for lying; and sometimes I am
whipped for holding my peace.
[5] We have started publishing material documenting
the campaign of military-level destruction carried out by Egypt's
anti-government "protesters" with our exclusive report on the
destruction of Egypt's National Council for Women, the government
agency devoted to fighting for women's rights, which can be read at
http://tenc.net/time.htm#II
In "Egypt: Colonialism, terror and deceit," we analyze how the
Western media twisted news reports so as to present those who burned
down fire stations and fired rocket-propelled grenades at police
stations as "protesters":
http://tenc.net/col-1.htm
In coming days, we will publish more evidence of destruction
and attempted destruction of libraries, hospitals, fire stations,
police stations, private residences and shopping centers; murder of
policemen; heavy weapon attacks on jails involving release of thousands
of inmates including terrorists; and evidence that on February 2,
contrary to the media and Western government statements, it was the
anti-Mubarak forces, not "Mubarak's Supporters," who instigated and
sustained the fighting in and around Tahrir Square.
In the meantime, this is what remains of the Al Bahr Al A'zam
Library in Cairo, destroyed on January 28, 2011 by the forces of the
Egyptian so-called "revolution":
 |
 |
| Source: Cybrarians:
the Arabic portal for librarianship & information science http://en.cybrarians.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334:dgsl |
[6] The Time article "Cairo Street Debate:
When Mubarak Foes and Backers Clash" by Rania Abouzeid (January 31,
2011) is posted on Emperor's Clothes with commentary by Jared Israel.
The commentary is at
http://tenc.net/time.htm#IV
The text of the article is at
http://tenc.net/time.htm#V
============================================
Appendix: "Watching Thugs With Razors and
Clubs at Tahrir Sq."
By Nicholas D. Kristof,
The New York Times, February 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/opinion/03kristof.html
[Nicholas D. Kristof's column begins here]
Pro-government thugs at Tahrir Square used clubs, machetes, swords and straight razors on Wednesday to try to crush Egypt's democracy movement, but, for me, the most memorable moment of a sickening day was one of inspiration: watching two women stand up to a mob.
I was on Tahrir Square, watching armed young men pour in to scream in support of President Hosni Mubarak and to battle the pro-democracy protesters. Everybody, me included, tried to give them a wide berth, and the bodies of the injured being carried away added to the tension. Then along came two middle-age sisters, Amal and Minna, walking toward the square to join the pro-democracy movement. They had their heads covered in the conservative Muslim style, and they looked timid and frail as thugs surrounded them, jostled them, shouted at them.
Yet side by side with the ugliest of humanity, you find the best. The two sisters stood their ground. They explained calmly to the mob why they favored democratic reform and listened patiently to the screams of the pro-Mubarak mob. When the women refused to be cowed, the men lost interest and began to move on --- and the two women continued to walk to the center of Tahrir Square.
I approached the women and told them I was awed by their courage. I jotted down their names and asked why they had risked the mob's wrath to come to Tahrir Square. "We need democracy in Egypt," Amal told me, looking quite composed. "We just want what you have."
But when I tried to interview them on video, thugs swarmed us again. I appeased the members of the mob by interviewing them (as one polished his razor), and the two sisters managed again to slip away and continue toward the center of Tahrir Square, also known as Liberation Square, to do their part for Egyptian democracy.
Thuggery and courage coexisted all day in Tahrir Square, just like that. The events were sometimes presented by the news media as "clashes" between rival factions, but that's a bit misleading. This was an organized government crackdown, but it relied on armed hoodlums, not on police or army troops.
The pro-Mubarak forces arrived in busloads that mysteriously were waved past checkpoints. These forces emerged at the same time in both Alexandria and Cairo, and they seemed to have been briefed to carry the same kinds of signs and scream the same slogans. They singled out foreign journalists, especially camera crews, presumably because they didn't want their brutality covered. A number of journalists were beaten up, although far and away it was Egyptians who suffered the most.
Until the arrival of these thugs, Tahrir Square had been remarkably peaceful, partly because pro-democracy volunteers checked I.D.'s and frisked everyone entering. One man, a suspected police infiltrator, was caught with a gun on Tuesday quite close to me, and I was impressed with the way volunteers disarmed him and dragged him to an army unit --- all while forming a protective cordon around him to keep him from being harmed. [Since Kristof claims he was an eye witness, why doesn't he show us a photo here, in his column, or include footage in his video of this remarkable supposed event? An excellent possible reason: it didn't happen, or did not happen at all in the way he describes. -- TENC]
In contrast, the pro-Mubarak mobs were picking fights. At first, the army kept them away from the pro-democracy crowds, but then the pro-Mubarak thugs charged into the square and began attacking.
There is no reliable way of knowing right now how many have been killed and injured in Egypt's turmoil. Before Wednesday's violence, Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said the death toll could be as many as 300, but she acknowledged that she was basing that on "unconfirmed" reports. There are some who are missing, including a senior Google official, Wael Ghonim, who supported the democracy activists. On Wednesday, the government said that three more had died and many hundreds were injured; I saw some people who were unmoving and looked severely injured at the least. These figures compare with perhaps more than 100 killed when Iran crushed its pro-democracy movement in 2009 and perhaps 400 to 800 killed in Beijing in 1989.
Chinese and Iranian leaders were widely condemned for those atrocities, so shouldn't Mr. Mubarak merit the same broad condemnation? Come on, President Obama. You owe the democracy protesters being attacked here, and our own history and values, a much more forceful statement deploring this crackdown.
It should be increasingly evident that Mr. Mubarak is not the remedy for the instability in Egypt; he is its cause. The road to stability in Egypt requires Mr. Mubarak's departure, immediately.
But for me, when I remember this sickening and bloody day, I'll conjure not only the brutality that Mr. Mubarak seems to have sponsored but also the courage and grace of those Egyptians who risked their lives as they sought to reclaim their country. And incredibly, the democracy protesters held their ground all day at Tahrir Square despite this armed onslaught. Above all, I'll be inspired by those two sisters standing up to Mr. Mubarak's hoodlums. If they, armed only with their principles, can stand up to Mr. Mubarak's thuggery, can't we all do the same?
(C) The New York Times Company, 2011. Reprinted here for educational purpose, for Fair Use Only.
[Nicholas D. Kristof's column ends here]
===============================================
You may send this article or the
link to any person or Internet list. You may post any TENC
article on the Internet as long as you cite Emperor's Clothes
as the source, credit the author(s), and state the URL, which in
this case is http://emperors-clothes.com/kristof4-print.htm
Subscribe to the TENC Newsletter -- Receive articles from
Emperor's Clothes. To join, send a blank email with SUBSCRIBE in
the subject line to:
emperorsclothes@tenc.net You will receive a
confirmation email within a day. (If you don't, please check your
email screening filter.) Please reply to that email and add the
Newsletter address to your personal address book:
emperorsclothes@tenc.net
The Emperor's New Clothes (TENC) *
www.tenc.net