12 ms·

2019-10-09 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraq-protests-latest-updates-191004085506824.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/10/iraq-protests-latest

• mikejb 7y ago
  > Same way no one gives a shit about Yemen. There is an undeniable discrepancy on how we receive and perceive information about individual subjects; Where our attention is directed, and from where it's deviated - what I'm surprised about is how this persists despite a medium like the Internet.
  • chvid 7y ago
    It persists because massive resources are spent on manipulating the public’s attention. Regardless of the medium.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    It persists because of the Internet, and the tendency of humans to cluster at the popular spots. News gets increasingly centralised. There is now almost a single "us", with a single focus of news cycle attention at any one time. Oh, and the propaganda industry.
• squarefoot 7y ago
  "If they killed every single person in the country no one would give a shit. Same way no one gives a shit about Yemen." Of course the world wouldn't give a shit: they're poor, badly clothed, darker skinned and (oh the horror!) even muslim, and when they finally all die their territory and oil will be up for grabs by the west. (undisclaimer: that wasn't a joke)
  • Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Isn't it logical (or at least understandable) to care more about the people who share the same cultural values and historical bagage than about other cultures which are harder to understand and relate to? Why should people care equally much about every single culture on earth, regardless of how much it relates to their own situation and life?
    • mcv 7y ago
      On an individual level that might be understandable, but on a larger scale, you end up excluding large groups and declaring them effectively less valuable, second class people. Ultimately, wherever people are born, wherever they live, they are still people. They're not much different from us, they're just living in different circumstances. We could have been born there. Some sympathy is absolutely justified.
    • thewholeview 7y ago
      The problem that us Chinese see is the level of hypocrisy at play here. The narrative on the entire HK suppose is in the name of freedom and evil of China and thus democracy must be the solution. Iraq has been "liberated" with democracy and yet the outcry is not an issue. I make no judgment on the merits of democracy, but if the West continues to play the propaganda narrative behind a fear of threat it is hard to justify the reasoning thrown around.
      • freeflight 7y ago
        It's also hard to miss for most people outside the US because a whole lot of them are still very directly affected by the consequences of this whole "crusade on terror" [0] going on to this day. In that context, there is quite some massive cynicism at play when the US celebrates itself for denying Chinese officials visa over the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, when the US also refused visa to ICC officials wanting to investigate the treatment of Muslims in "NATO occupied" Afghanistan [1]. Particularly in the context that the US was quite on-board with the "Uighur Jihadis!" narrative not too long ago [2]. [0] https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html https://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/15/mike-pompeo-us-war-crimes-investigation-international-criminal-court https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/15/mike-pompeo-... [2] https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/analysts-uighur-jihadis-syria-could-pose-threat https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/analysts-uighur-jiha...
• bjourne 7y ago
  Same thing is happening in Gaza where over 200 civilians have been killed in the March of Return demonstrations over the last year. Our Western media reporting is insanely narrow and single-minded. One can only hope that, since we are outraged about the HK situation (as we should be!), it follows that we should be outraged about other worse situations too.
  • euix 7y ago
    In eastern political systems such as China and Russia, the prevailing sentiment among the masses is cynicism. In democratic systems it is hypocrisy. Pick your poison.
    • mikorym 7y ago
      The one where you have the means of living together with self-determination.
      • rjf72 7y ago
        Would self determination not be reflected by approval of one's government? Presumably one is going to have a sense of greater self determination and government satisfaction if they feel that their government is pursuing their interests, and vice versa otherwise. Harvard carried out a study involving a survey polling people across 30 different nations on a variety of different topics. [1] This includes (among various other more detailed categories) peoples' awareness of various world leaders, their self determined attention rate to news involving various leaders, and their general rating of those leaders. It reveals quite a lot of really interesting and surprising results. For instance about 88% of Americans do not know who Modi is, 85% of Saudis do not know who Putin is, but coming out on top is Israel which sports a less than 5% awareness of Modi. A number of the results really reveal how much of a bubble we all live in. But the reason it's relevant is because it gives some third party measurement of how people within various countries view their country's leaders. As with all big data like this, people can prove anything they want - so I'm going to avoid giving any more specific numbers other than the neutral ones from above. Okay one more fun one, Tanzania just friggin loves everybody! [1] - https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/reflections-survey-global-perceptions-international-leaders-and-world-powers https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/reflections-survey-...
• daliusd 7y ago
  > the whole world > no one gives a shit You should speak for yourself. There are people who care but that does not make a difference unfortunately (yet or maybe never). As well you shouldn't speak in absolutes IMHO.
  • ahje 7y ago
    People that do care realise that "no one gives a shit" is a frustrated way of saying "too few care enough for it to matter in the larger scheme of things".
  • noselasd 7y ago
    He isn't speaking in absolutes - you are interpreting it in absolutes. "whole world" and "noone gives a shit" are not absolute terms in common speak.
• mc32 7y ago
  It’s a conflict zone like east Ukraine/Crimea. Hundreds (thousands?) died, but it’s a conflict zone. People have different expectations about that. Especially when the protests were peaceful for months and years...
  • htfu 7y ago
    It's not actually a conflict zone.
    • mc32 7y ago
      Sectarian violence isn’t a conflict zone? Northern Ireland wasn’t a conflict zone?
      • htfu 7y ago
        I’d say a conflict zone is an area of at least semi-active clashes. Sectarian violence may or may not cut it - were Nazi concentration camps conflict zones? I’m not saying it’s safe or anything, but Baghdad was spared ISIS, the former green zone is open to the public, compared to what most of the rest of the country has seen these past few years I fail to see how you’d classify it as a conflict zone.
    • nickik 7y ago
      Crimea might not have been much of a conflict zone but Eastern Ukraine was.
• htfu 7y ago
  While those numbers are obviously competely unacceptable by any measure whatsoever, the fact that 9 of the dead are security forces should show that the entire situation is also simply _much_ more hardcore all around, compared to HK. Also not exactly Gaza-level lopsided...
• ahbyb 7y ago
  What's so odd about us only caring about our own (westerners)?
  • VBprogrammer 7y ago
    It's racist as fuck.
    • ahbyb 7y ago
      First, people from Hong Kong are not white. Second, there's nothing wrong with racism either.
    • sethammons 7y ago
      Is it? Humans are tribalistic. Family, town, sports team, etc. The further out you go, the less typical people associate "them" as "us." I'm not sure that it is non-westerner's race nor skin color as much as distance, culture, and lack of media exposure. Doesn't make it right, but I'm not sure it is racist.
      • VBprogrammer 7y ago
        Sure, it's trivially easy to slip into tribalistic behaviour. That doesn't make it right, decent or defensible. We should aspire to be better than our unchecked nature; not use it to excuse our failings.
  • mc32 7y ago
    It’s unwinnable. You go in and take sides, it’s interference, imperialism (you’re doing it for the oil). You stay out and let them work it out then it’s craven indifference. I mean Iran, Russia and Saudi are all over there. They don’t need another entity adding their two cents. It’s like AOC, let’s get out of Syria. We leave Syria —how can you leave Syria they’ve been our allies, etc. In that part, or any part of the world people only become you allies in war when there’s something in it for them. They’re not doing so as a favor. Just like us. When we went into WWII it wasn’t a favor. We knew that not going in would be worse for us.
• Angostura 7y ago
  I suspect that the increased Hong Kong coverage might have at least partially driven by heightened interest in the UK (ex UK colony) pushing interest in the anglosphere.
  • boomboomsubban 7y ago
    Mandatory Iraq was a thing, though ties are closer with Hong Kong.
• dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Violent crackdowns on protests are par for the course in the middle east. Since the fall of the USSR (and all its puppets) 30yr ago they are not par for the course for nations as developed as China. The fact of the matter is that when China does it it's more newsworthy than when Iraq does it.
  • boomboomsubban 7y ago
    There hasn't been a military/violent crackdown in Hong Kong.
• tssva 7y ago
  Most people don't give a shit in the case of Iraq and Yemen because they consider both sides to be equally as bad.
  • baud147258 7y ago
    I don't see how you consider people protesting against "corruption, unemployment and poor public services" to be bad.
    • tssva 7y ago
      Because when the groups leading the protests were in power they were just corrupt, social conditions were just as bad and they were as brutal and tyrannical as those now in power.
      • Miner49er 7y ago
        Who's leading the protest? My understanding was that it is leaderless.
      • yeahigotgoats 7y ago
        amen
      • ianleeclark 7y ago
        > Because when the groups leading the protests were in power they were just corrupt, social conditions were just as bad and they were as brutal and tyrannical as those now in power. Was this before or after the west decided to parcel up middle eastern land based on whims?
      • Ahmed90 7y ago
        The group leading the protest? wtf? there is no group leading the protest and the current government and all the political parties involved have been in power since the US gave it to them in 2003, and before that was Saddam for 30 years and as far as I know no one else was in power and Saddam is long dead... Please stop making ignorant statements about my country... kthxbai
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago
  I have hundreds of products in my house that say "Made in Hong Kong". I don't have a single product in my house that says "Made in Iraq". It's not strange that North America doesn't care much about Iraqi plight, as we have next to no relationship with them or their people. Same as we all cannot afford to cry over every single other person's mother and father passing away, but we cry over our own parents passing.
  • essenauta 7y ago
    >occupy a sovereign country for 12 years >Continue to keep soldiers there >no relationship flyGuyOnTheSly, I...
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • zimbatm 7y ago
    There are a lot more things at play. Hong Kong is ideologically closer to American's values, and so having China take it over can be seen as a form of indirect threat. It also plays into the whole trade war going on at the moment. Financially, American companies have more ties with Hong Kong than Iraq. ... People are also influenced by what the media gives them to think about this week.
  • ephemeralism 7y ago
    well, you did invade them. Overthrew their government. but sure, other than that, next to no connection.
    • flyGuyOnTheSly 7y ago
      I am a Polish immigrant to Canada. Canada very reluctantly helped the US with their air raid campaign over Afghanistan, but as far as I am aware we didn't have much say in Iraq. And either way, I fail to see how that translates to having a closer relationship with their people. If anything, it distances them from our psyche. Obviously the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I am not arguing that it was right in any way whatsoever.
• lozf 7y ago
  Remember that Kashmir is still under 24h curfew, with no Internet / International calls since 5th August.
  • cscurmudgeon 7y ago
    Remember that Pakistan is still an Islamic republic and recently blocked a bill that will allow non Muslims to become PM or President. https://www.news18.com/news/world/pak-parliament-blocks-christian-mps-bid-to-pass-bill-allowing-non-muslims-to-become-pm-president-2333385.html https://www.news18.com/news/world/pak-parliament-blocks-chri... The world did not care.
    • ejstronge 7y ago
      > Remember that Pakistan is still an Islamic republic and recently blocked a bill that will allow non Muslims to become PM or President. > https://www.news18.com/news/world/pak-parliament-blocks-chri.. https://www.news18.com/news/world/pak-parliament-blocks-chri.... > The world did not care. I don't really see the equivalence between India and Pakistan's actions. Also, I'm not up-to-date on Indian politics, but how many non-Hindu leaders have been elected to top positions?
      • jeswin 7y ago
        Indian Prime-Ministership was held by Dr.Manmohan Singh (a Sikh) between 2004-14, which has been the longest tenure in recent times. The President's position is mostly ceremonial, but by far the most popular occupant has been Dr.Abdul Kalam, a Muslim scientist. It's true though that Hinduism is far stronger today as a political force than it has ever been. And just as everywhere else, mixing religion with politics is not a good idea.
      • cscurmudgeon 7y ago
        Of course no equivalence at all. Pakistan has been engaging in a genocide of its minorities over 70 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35910331 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35910331 > Before the partition of India, what is now Pakistan was a much more diverse place but tolerance has declined as society has become increasingly Islamicised and more homogenous. Minorities used to make up 15% of the population in these cities. Now they account for less than 4%.
• throwaway66920 7y ago
  I’m pretty naive to the Middle East, but the primary reason people are protesting is lack of economic opportunity (Iraq specifically), right? Is that someone’s fault? Can it actually be changed? I don’t want people to be killed for protesting, but I don’t know if I care if that protest is successful or not. I’m open to ideas why I should. It sounds like a bunch of people are protesting that their country and has few useful economic outputs, and that sucks, but I’m not sure what can be done about that.
  • danharaj 7y ago
    The United States rolled in and installed a brutal kleptocratic state after starving the country through sanctions in the decade previous. I guess that enterprising freedom loving American ideology didn't take. Oh well what can you do /s
    • throwaway66920 7y ago
      I mean I’m sure American influence has been a clusterf* But I guess what I’m trying to say is I can clearly explain why I want the Hong Kong protests to be successful. I don’t think I can do the same for Iraq
  • avocado4 7y ago
    Protesters are burning Iranian flags.
    • throwaway66920 7y ago
      And I think I understand that’s because they’ve elected an Iranian favoring government which they believe is causing limited economic opportunities- or perhaps anger at the government due to its violent response to generic economic protests. My question is, why should I care if the protests are successful or not? It’s a separate idea from wanting protestors to receive humane treatment from the government.
• freeflight 7y ago
  It's the same everywhere: Attacks on Saudi oil refineries got world-wide attention and mention by world leaders, even tho not a single person died. While around that same time, the US accidentally droned 30+ Afghani farmers [0]. The international response to that? It doesn't exist to this day. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-drones/u-s-drone-strike-kills-30-pine-nut-farm-workers-in-afghanistan-idUSKBN1W40NW https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-attack-drones...
  • throwawaycanada 7y ago
    I think that is mostly due to the fact it could kick off a major war.
• not_a_cop75 7y ago
  It's a billionaire controlled media empire. You want them to suddenly care about something other than money? I think you chose the wrong media to follow.
• trenning 7y ago
  You yourself neglect to acknowledge there's also civil war kicking off in Ecuador right now. People outside conflict areas only start to give a shit when it affects something they care about personally.
  • bobwaycott 7y ago
    How did they neglect to acknowledge? They did not mention it in their examples, but framing that as non-acknowledgment seems quite wrong. There’s a lot of terrible shit happening across the globe. One cannot reasonably expect every instance of that to be exhaustively mentioned every time a person mentions a couple of examples.
• alexandercrohde 7y ago
  >> If they killed every single person in the country no one would give a shit. Same way no one gives a shit about Yemen. What's your point exactly? Is it that human nature is broken, and that we should try to compensate for it [by trying to force ourselves to care more] ? (Because I wonder how many atrocities there are in the world, and how that scales if every internet stranger needs to be angry about every atrocity or else...)
  • boomboomsubban 7y ago
    We should address the atrocities we are responsible for and try not to repeat them before getting outraged over the acts of others.
  • coldtea 7y ago
    >Is it that human nature is broken, and that we should try to compensate for it No, that if we should be aware, we should be aware for all injustices, not just follow the ones we are force-fed by hypocritical self-serving interests (e.g. our country's diplomacy and subservient media preferring this victim over that, or getting outraged at this player over that - because it suits some diplomatic plans). Especially when they atrocities they point people to look at are much more minor than others they purposefully ignore... In general, getting one's own opinion, as opposed following the government/media agendas of enemies and victim's du jour, and knowing when they're manipulated, is a good thing... should see through crocodile tears hypocritic concern, and that we should be aware of all injustices
    • alexandercrohde 7y ago
      >> not just follow the ones we are force-fed by hypocritical self-serving interests Nobody is force-feeding anybody. TV news is dead, the newspaper is dead. People read the news they find interesting. If you really think the reason people prefer read US-weekly to civil wars in foreign countries is because "The Man" then you're in for a rude awakening.
      • coldtea 7y ago
• avocado4 7y ago
  These are the same Iraqi protesters that are burning Iranian flags. Clearly US has already put pressure on Iran backing current Baghdad government. I wonder if they'll also start pressuring Baghdad itself after this violence. Article says State department is expressing concerns but that's it.
• linuxftw 7y ago
  > security forces This legitimizes the current puppet-government installed by foreigners. I think a more appropriate term would be US-backed Junta forces. Of course, some of us were saying this almost 20 years ago now: Don't invade Iraq, you'll destabilize the entire region. I'm a one-issue voter: No foreign wars, period. Some of us do care about the well being of others, but it's impossible to have this kind of discussion because people are selfish. Everyone wants to talk about Climate Change, Socialized Health Care, etc, etc. Most people don't actually care about others, and it's why I want to slap anyone that discusses climate change. We have much bigger problems that we need to solve right now, or we're going to kill ourselves long before we fry the earth.
• kerkeslager 7y ago
  At this point, if a person doesn't read Al Jazeera regularly, I can't take that person's opinions on global politics very seriously. It's not that Al Jazeera isn't biased, or even that it's less biased, it's just that it provides a viewpoint which is so obviously missing from western news sources, and if you're not making an attempt to expose yourself to that viewpoint, you are only hearing one side of quite a wide variety of global political issues.
  • vonseel 7y ago
    You’ve just convinced at least one person to add Al Jazeera to his primary news sources.
    • kerkeslager 7y ago
      I'm glad! The need to get my news from international sources became apparent to me after hearing two radio reports on the same story. The local US radio said something along the lines of "Two Palestinians are dead after they attacked Israeli police." The BBC story said something like, "Israeli police shot and killed two Palestinian youths after the youths threw stones at the police." That's not even an openly pro-Palestinian organization, it's the BBC. There's still bias[1], but it's clear that the bias is in a different direction. [1] I've been told by a 5-lingual friend that "throwing stones" is often a translation of a Hebrew/Arabic word (directly, "stoning") that sometimes includes behaviors like "dropping a refrigerator off the top of a building onto your target"--certainly a lot less innocuous than "throwing stones". I'm not saying that's what happened--I don't know--I'm just saying to be wary of assuming that any amount of secondhand reporting gives you an accurate impression of what's happening on the ground.
  • yellowapple 7y ago
    I agree with this, as someone who rolls his eyes at the vast majority of what Al Jazeera publishes. I have a similar attitude with RT and Fox News and Breitbart; I may strongly disagree with a lot of their conclusions, but I do recognize the importance of understanding the thought processes underpinning those conclusions.