5 ms·

O.o The NYT is framing this as Saudi being attacked? The Saudi forces are executing a genocide in Yemen backed by US military targeting, weapons, and mid-air re

O.o The NYT is framing this as Saudi being attacked? The Saudi forces are executing a genocide in Yemen backed by US military targeting, weapons, and mid-air refueling (some of this was stopped but not all of it). This is on the back of Thomas Friedman's laughable piece on MBS (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-...). Is the Times executing a propaganda campaign? Sickening.

lakechfoma 9y ago
When is launching missiles at another country ever _not_ attacking them?
- everdev 9y ago
  I think it's a semantic difference between "attacking" and "defending". For some, attacking means the first party to engage in violence. Regardless, this was an act of violence even if it was preceded by other acts of violence.
  - EthanHeilman 9y ago
    At the strategic level offensive and defense refers to the side which has positive war aims. That is, Attackers are trying to change the current state in their favor (e.g. seizing territory or regime change) whereas defenders are attempting to resist this change (i.e. maintaining the status quo). This can sometimes be complex as both sides in a war may have positive strategic aims.
ztratar 9y ago
Saudi is both attacking and being attacked. Both are true, and talking about either side is still good journalism.
- blackoil 9y ago
  Talking about only one particularly stronger side, is propaganda.
  - Analemma_ 9y ago
    The article is about a missile fired at Saudi Arabia. Is every article like this obliged to insert an amount of irrelevant filler equivalent to which side is worse by some arbitrary definition?
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      They already are inserting that filler by frequent references to Iran and a notion that this war could be considered an even match.
taurath 9y ago
Kind of curious what context you have that you consider the Friedman article laughable - I must not be versed in the subject.
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  Here's a good rundown. https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-the-saudi-crown-prince-sexual-assaulters-and-robert-mugabe/ https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-the-s...
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I'm not the GP commenter, but I strongly agree. Friedman's column [0] was the most obvious propaganda piece I've ever seen in a serious publication. It both blew me away for its shamelessness and also sickened me when I read it, permanently ended my trust in Friedman, greatly reduced my trust in all NYT columnists, and hurt my trust in the NYT in general. Here are a few obvious problems: 1. "Arab Spring": The Arab Spring was a grassroots movement for democracy, self-determination for the citizens. That's the complete opposite of a dictator - in a monarchy even - consolidating power. That difference is the foundation of the United States in particular and democracies world-wide. It's double-speak, as absurd as calling the NSA an open source organization. 2. "only a fool would not root for it": Friedman is far too experienced and sophisticated to fall for the promises and hopes of the latest "benign" despot who is at the stage of consolidating power. It's standard operating procedure for dictators at this stage: Promise a lot to everyone, especially to the West (apparently via Friedman), [EDIT: and liberalize] in order to neutralize potential threats - 'he says great things; he's liberalizing; let's wait and see what happens!'. Once power is consolidated, you can do whatever you want; the "benign" part is forgotten, the freedoms taken away. It never turns out differently. Why not let the citizens vote on your power if you are so benign and they love you so much? EDIT: Only if the citizens have the power to protect their freedoms, through voting, will the freedoms be maintained - I defy you to find a counter-example. 3. "his government arrested scores of Saudi princes and businessmen on charges of corruption and threw them into a makeshift gilded jail — the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton — until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains. You don’t see that every day": In fact, you do see it every day a new dictator consolidates power. It's so standard that I could have told you it would happen: They imprison their enemies and force them to confess or just convict them (summarily or via show trial); corruption is a popular charge in these situations for its propaganda value with the public and the West - look at Xi in China for a recent example. There are no independent courts, trials, rule of law, or justice. 4. "It’s “ludicrous,” he [the dictator] said, to suggest that this anticorruption campaign was a power grab." Accepted without question by Friedman, who apparently was born the morning of the interview. 5. "Not a single Saudi I spoke to here over three days expressed anything other than effusive support for this anticorruption drive." What a surprise! As the new King is rounding up people and consolidating power, nobody told the NYT columnist that they objected. Only in dictatorships is there universal effusive support for anything. Did Friedman talk to the imprisoned people or their families? 6. "While foreigners, like me, were inquiring about the legal framework for this operation, the mood among Saudis I spoke with was: “Just turn them all upside down, shake the money out of their pockets and don’t stop shaking them until it’s all out!”" Those ridiculous foreigners, worried about trivial nonsense like the rule of law, independent courts, and justice for the accused. Just let the King decide who is guilty; that whole American Revolution was a mistake. 7. "to bring Saudi Islam back to its more open and modern orientation — whence it diverted in 1979." First, Friedman buys the framing from the dictator's propaganda: This is the normal state of it, to which the King will return it. I didn't see anyone mention that natural state of things before, in many years of reading about it. Also, this is obviously a play for Western support for his dictatorship. If Friedman is serious, how about talking to some historians and providing some serious history, not the dictator's narrative? 8. "After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to M.B.S.’s youth, pointing out that I was exactly twice his age. It’s been a long, long time, though, since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas about transforming his country." and "A lawyer by training, who rose up in his family’s education-social welfare foundation." and more: Was this ghost-written by the dictator's flunkies? Kim Jong-Un has similar things written about him, but not in the NY Times! I'm out of time (and probably so are you), so I'll stop reading the column there ... 9. It is completely one-sided, with barely a hint of skepticism and zero discussion with or even mention of the the dictator's opposition (including the people in jail), critics, victims; no discussion of his weaknesses and failures; no holding him to account for the lack of democracy (or even mention of it). It's a PR piece for a candidate, except there is no election there. It's so obvious and over-the-top that I almost think Friedman was trying to call attention to the absurdity, like the old satarists behind the Iron Curtain who would get their point across without triggering the censors by being over-the-top effusive* about their oppressors. But who is censoring Friedman? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-...
nl 9y ago
There is nothing at all in that article which supports your statement about the framing. In fact the article doesn’t use the word “attack” at all. It’s an investigation into the technology of the missile defence system. To call it sickening seems a stretch.
- rajathagasthya 9y ago
  I don't completely agree that NYT has framed this as Saudis being attacked, but I did find this sentence strange: > "The findings show that the Iranian-backed Houthis, once a ragtag group of rebels, have grown powerful enough to strike major targets in Saudi Arabia, possibly shifting the balance of their years-long war." Shifting the balance in the war? Not even remotely true and is quite simply impossible while the Saudis have all the help from the US.
  - nl 9y ago
    The way the Saudi's have been behaving is atrocious and indefensible. But the ability of the Houthis to strike Riyadh is a pretty significant development. If they show the ability to keep doing it consistently it will certainly change how the war is going.
davidf18 9y ago
If a missile is shot at Saudi Arabia then by definition it is being attacked. Since the missile is an Iranian missile, it would seem that Iran contributed to the attack.
codingdave 9y ago
Whether or not the attack is justified is a completely different question than whether or not it happened.
gressquel 9y ago
its an excellent piece of journalism. The author and his helpers have done alot of researching and produced a very informative article. How one can accuse this for propaganda I don't know. Are you a russian troll or something?
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  It's in large part the choice of topic rather than the details of the article. They could have chosen to highlight how Yemeni defenses work in light of a US backed Saudi bombing campaign.
  - nl 9y ago
    how Yemeni defenses work in light of a US backed Saudi bombing campaign What Yemeni defenses? There are none, and there is no story about it. The NY Times has covered the outrageous Saudi behavior extensively. "Saudis Try to Starve Yemen Into Submission" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-yemen-famine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-yeme... "Yemen’s War Is a Tragedy. Is It Also a Crime?" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/world/middleeast/yemen-crimes-against-humanity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/world/middleeast/yemen-cr... "2 Paths for Yemen’s War-Scarred Children: Combat, or Marriage" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/world/middleeast/yemen-war-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/world/middleeast/yemen-wa... "‘It’s a Slow Death’: The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/world/middleeast/yemen-cholera-humanitarian-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/world/middlee... "U.S. Fingerprints on Attacks Obliterating Yemen’s Economy" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-bombing-houthis-hunger.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/yemen-sa... I could keep going. Trying to characterize them as excusing the Saudis somehow seems to misrepresent their reporting.
    - SapphireSun 9y ago
      Thank you for the links.
gaius 9y ago
The NYT has always banged the drum for war. They backed the candidate gagging to get stuck in in Syria remember. Trump getting in instead set them back but only by a year or two, they'll get their war eventually.
trgv 9y ago
You should take another glance at the article. It's actually quite good (in the topic, not the one you linked, I share your distaste for Thomas Friedman). It doesn't say anything about the situation in Yemen, it's just a solid investigative piece about whether the missile was actually intercepted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lakechfoma 9y ago

When is launching missiles at another country ever _not_ attacking them?

everdev 9y ago
I think it's a semantic difference between "attacking" and "defending". For some, attacking means the first party to engage in violence. Regardless, this was an act of violence even if it was preceded by other acts of violence.
- EthanHeilman 9y ago
  At the strategic level offensive and defense refers to the side which has positive war aims. That is, Attackers are trying to change the current state in their favor (e.g. seizing territory or regime change) whereas defenders are attempting to resist this change (i.e. maintaining the status quo). This can sometimes be complex as both sides in a war may have positive strategic aims.

ztratar 9y ago

Saudi is both attacking and being attacked. Both are true, and talking about either side is still good journalism.

blackoil 9y ago
Talking about only one particularly stronger side, is propaganda.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  The article is about a missile fired at Saudi Arabia. Is every article like this obliged to insert an amount of irrelevant filler equivalent to which side is worse by some arbitrary definition?
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    They already are inserting that filler by frequent references to Iran and a notion that this war could be considered an even match.

taurath 9y ago

Kind of curious what context you have that you consider the Friedman article laughable - I must not be versed in the subject.

SapphireSun 9y ago
Here's a good rundown. https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-the-saudi-crown-prince-sexual-assaulters-and-robert-mugabe/ https://theintercept.com/2017/11/29/very-bad-men-trump-the-s...
forapurpose 9y ago
I'm not the GP commenter, but I strongly agree. Friedman's column [0] was the most obvious propaganda piece I've ever seen in a serious publication. It both blew me away for its shamelessness and also sickened me when I read it, permanently ended my trust in Friedman, greatly reduced my trust in all NYT columnists, and hurt my trust in the NYT in general. Here are a few obvious problems: 1. "Arab Spring": The Arab Spring was a grassroots movement for democracy, self-determination for the citizens. That's the complete opposite of a dictator - in a monarchy even - consolidating power. That difference is the foundation of the United States in particular and democracies world-wide. It's double-speak, as absurd as calling the NSA an open source organization. 2. "only a fool would not root for it": Friedman is far too experienced and sophisticated to fall for the promises and hopes of the latest "benign" despot who is at the stage of consolidating power. It's standard operating procedure for dictators at this stage: Promise a lot to everyone, especially to the West (apparently via Friedman), [EDIT: and liberalize] in order to neutralize potential threats - 'he says great things; he's liberalizing; let's wait and see what happens!'. Once power is consolidated, you can do whatever you want; the "benign" part is forgotten, the freedoms taken away. It never turns out differently. Why not let the citizens vote on your power if you are so benign and they love you so much? EDIT: Only if the citizens have the power to protect their freedoms, through voting, will the freedoms be maintained - I defy you to find a counter-example. 3. "his government arrested scores of Saudi princes and businessmen on charges of corruption and threw them into a makeshift gilded jail — the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton — until they agreed to surrender their ill-gotten gains. You don’t see that every day": In fact, you do see it every day a new dictator consolidates power. It's so standard that I could have told you it would happen: They imprison their enemies and force them to confess or just convict them (summarily or via show trial); corruption is a popular charge in these situations for its propaganda value with the public and the West - look at Xi in China for a recent example. There are no independent courts, trials, rule of law, or justice. 4. "It’s “ludicrous,” he [the dictator] said, to suggest that this anticorruption campaign was a power grab." Accepted without question by Friedman, who apparently was born the morning of the interview. 5. "Not a single Saudi I spoke to here over three days expressed anything other than effusive support for this anticorruption drive." What a surprise! As the new King is rounding up people and consolidating power, nobody told the NYT columnist that they objected. Only in dictatorships is there universal effusive support for anything. Did Friedman talk to the imprisoned people or their families? 6. "While foreigners, like me, were inquiring about the legal framework for this operation, the mood among Saudis I spoke with was: “Just turn them all upside down, shake the money out of their pockets and don’t stop shaking them until it’s all out!”" Those ridiculous foreigners, worried about trivial nonsense like the rule of law, independent courts, and justice for the accused. Just let the King decide who is guilty; that whole American Revolution was a mistake. 7. "to bring Saudi Islam back to its more open and modern orientation — whence it diverted in 1979." First, Friedman buys the framing from the dictator's propaganda: This is the normal state of it, to which the King will return it. I didn't see anyone mention that natural state of things before, in many years of reading about it. Also, this is obviously a play for Western support for his dictatorship. If Friedman is serious, how about talking to some historians and providing some serious history, not the dictator's narrative? 8. "After nearly four hours together, I surrendered at 1:15 a.m. to M.B.S.’s youth, pointing out that I was exactly twice his age. It’s been a long, long time, though, since any Arab leader wore me out with a fire hose of new ideas about transforming his country." and "A lawyer by training, who rose up in his family’s education-social welfare foundation." and more: Was this ghost-written by the dictator's flunkies? Kim Jong-Un has similar things written about him, but not in the NY Times! I'm out of time (and probably so are you), so I'll stop reading the column there ... 9. It is completely one-sided, with barely a hint of skepticism and zero discussion with or even mention of the the dictator's opposition (including the people in jail), critics, victims; no discussion of his weaknesses and failures; no holding him to account for the lack of democracy (or even mention of it). It's a PR piece for a candidate, except there is no election there. It's so obvious and over-the-top that I almost think Friedman was trying to call attention to the absurdity, like the old satarists behind the Iron Curtain who would get their point across without triggering the censors by being over-the-top effusive* about their oppressors. But who is censoring Friedman? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-...

nl 9y ago

There is nothing at all in that article which supports your statement about the framing. In fact the article doesn’t use the word “attack” at all. It’s an investigation into the technology of the missile defence system. To call it sickening seems a stretch.

rajathagasthya 9y ago
I don't completely agree that NYT has framed this as Saudis being attacked, but I did find this sentence strange: > "The findings show that the Iranian-backed Houthis, once a ragtag group of rebels, have grown powerful enough to strike major targets in Saudi Arabia, possibly shifting the balance of their years-long war." Shifting the balance in the war? Not even remotely true and is quite simply impossible while the Saudis have all the help from the US.
- nl 9y ago
  The way the Saudi's have been behaving is atrocious and indefensible. But the ability of the Houthis to strike Riyadh is a pretty significant development. If they show the ability to keep doing it consistently it will certainly change how the war is going.

davidf18 9y ago

If a missile is shot at Saudi Arabia then by definition it is being attacked. Since the missile is an Iranian missile, it would seem that Iran contributed to the attack.

codingdave 9y ago

Whether or not the attack is justified is a completely different question than whether or not it happened.

gressquel 9y ago

its an excellent piece of journalism. The author and his helpers have done alot of researching and produced a very informative article. How one can accuse this for propaganda I don't know. Are you a russian troll or something?

SapphireSun 9y ago
It's in large part the choice of topic rather than the details of the article. They could have chosen to highlight how Yemeni defenses work in light of a US backed Saudi bombing campaign.
- nl 9y ago
  how Yemeni defenses work in light of a US backed Saudi bombing campaign What Yemeni defenses? There are none, and there is no story about it. The NY Times has covered the outrageous Saudi behavior extensively. "Saudis Try to Starve Yemen Into Submission" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-yemen-famine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/opinion/saudi-arabia-yeme... "Yemen’s War Is a Tragedy. Is It Also a Crime?" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/world/middleeast/yemen-crimes-against-humanity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/world/middleeast/yemen-cr... "2 Paths for Yemen’s War-Scarred Children: Combat, or Marriage" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/world/middleeast/yemen-war-children.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/world/middleeast/yemen-wa... "‘It’s a Slow Death’: The World’s Worst Humanitarian Crisis" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/world/middleeast/yemen-cholera-humanitarian-crisis.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/world/middlee... "U.S. Fingerprints on Attacks Obliterating Yemen’s Economy" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/yemen-saudi-bombing-houthis-hunger.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/world/middleeast/yemen-sa... I could keep going. Trying to characterize them as excusing the Saudis somehow seems to misrepresent their reporting.
  - SapphireSun 9y ago
    Thank you for the links.

gaius 9y ago

The NYT has always banged the drum for war. They backed the candidate gagging to get stuck in in Syria remember. Trump getting in instead set them back but only by a year or two, they'll get their war eventually.

trgv 9y ago

You should take another glance at the article. It's actually quite good (in the topic, not the one you linked, I share your distaste for Thomas Friedman). It doesn't say anything about the situation in Yemen, it's just a solid investigative piece about whether the missile was actually intercepted.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]