zenpundit.com

[ by Charles Cameron — second of three posts, this one more hopeful ]
.

Experts say footage of beheading of Christians in Libya was FAKE http://t.co/3trjmAtlsi pic.twitter.com/yEw3kVhQC0

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) February 21, 2015

Does ISIS really have SEVEN-FOOT tall executioners? Parts of grisly film showing beheading of 21 Christians were faked, claim experts

Veryan Khan, of the Florida-based Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told Fox News that there are several technical mistakes in the video that show it was manipulated.

She said that in the shot of the terrorists marching their prisoners along the beach, the jihadis appear to be 7ft tall – towering as much as two feet above their victims.

This observation was supported by Hollywood director Mary Lambert who described it as the shot with the ‘really tall Jihadists and the dwarf Christians.’

**

Analysis: Mosul Museum video from Islamic State could be a staged drama – http://t.co/67kozsT8e3

— McClatchyDC (@McClatchyDC) February 28, 2015

Analysis: Mosul Museum video from Islamic State could be a staged drama

Britain’s Channel 4 television gave the Islamic State propaganda video to archaeologists to examine. Mark Altaweel, an American scholar at the Institute of Archaeology at University College London, noted the modern iron rebar protruding from inside some of the smashed statues. It disproves their authenticity.

Nonetheless, the vandalism’s cultural insult strikes deep. The Iraqi people, Altaweel said, “are taking the destruction of their cultural heritage – their identity, essentially – just as seriously as the beheadings.”

**

The above ties in with the notion expressed in the LA Times article — where else? — Islamic State and its increasingly sophisticated cinema of terror:

The cinematography is as crisp and chilling as a horror movie. Men in orange jumpsuits kneel on a beach beneath a sky of broken clouds. Executioners hover over them, dressed in black, knives aglint. A masked militant reads the death sentence. The camera pans across praying faces. Knives are raised, and 21 men are beheaded, blood spilling into the sand and mixing with the waves.

This and other recent execution videos released by Islamic State are slickly produced narratives of multiple camera angles, eerie tension and polished editing that suggest the filmmakers are versed in Hollywood aesthetics. Brutal and perverse, the clips, some infused with music and subtitles, carry a primeval message stylized for a world wired to social media and hypnotized by an endless pulse of competing images.

The beheadings and other killings, including the burning alive of a captured Jordanian fighter pilot, represent an increasingly sophisticated cinema of terror.

For more on the media side of things, see the third and last post in this series.

[ by Charles Cameron — a little quiet, serious fun here ]
.

Ken aka @chumulu suggested a DoubleTweet to me, and I’m delighted to post it here, Turkey, penguins and all:

Translated Tweet: "If you see penguins on CNN, check Twitter for what's going on." Common feeling, seems, in Turkey. pic.twitter.com/0LvWGMBJ3K

— Zeynep Tufekci (@zeynep) February 22, 2015

and:

As Turkish army enters Syria and parliament weighs bill giving police extra powers, CNNTurk rises to the challenge pic.twitter.com/ibWl8cuQhW

— Piotr Zalewski (@p_zalewski) February 22, 2015

**

Plus I’m a big admirer of Zeynep.

[ by Charles Cameron — why scholarship should inform punditry ]
.

**

I am a bit surprised, I have to say, that I haven’t seen — and Google doesn’t seem to have found, either — a clear rebuttal to one highly significant detail in David Brooks‘ discussion with Mark Shields and Judy Woodruff on Islamic eschatology.

In the PBS NewsHour segment labeled Shields and Brooks on fighting Islamic extremism (above), Brooks makes the statement:

I do think you have to take the religion seriously, that these people are — it’s not like they can’t get what we want. They want something they think is higher than what we want. Their souls are involved. And I’m saying you have to conceive of them as moving, as acting in a religious way.

And you have to have religious alternatives. And they are driven by an end times ideology. They think there’s going to be some cataclysm battle and Mohammed will come down. And if you ignore that part of it, write it off as sort of marginal, that they are being produced by economic dysfunction, I just think you’re missing the main deal.

I’m largely in agreement with this, but the phrase “and Mohammed will come down” is just plain wrong. In Islamic eschatology, it is claimed that Jesus (‘Isa ibn Maryam) — not Muhammad — will “come down” from heaven at the ‘Umayyad mosque in Damascus:

God will send the Messiah, son of Mary, and he will descend to the white minaret in the east of Damascus, wearing two garments dyed with saffron, placing his hands on the wings of two angels. When he lowers his head, beads of perspiration will fall from it, and when he raises his head, beads like pearls will scatter from it.

The return of Jesus and his “breaking the cross” and preaching the one faith of Submission (Islam) may be what Brooks should have mentioned — or perhaps he meant the arrival and recognition of the Mahdi, who does not “come down” to us but is already among us by the time his end times role begins.

I can see how this may seem a slight slip-of-the-tongue to David Brooks, who is after all not solely preoccupied with IS, Islam, and / or apocalyptic — but it’s not something that should go unchallenged if we are to “take the religion seriously”.

[ by Charles Cameron — all tweets guaranteed safe for the workplace ]
.

Steven Emerson made the mistaken claim on Fox News that Birmingham is an all-Muslim enclave — and has withdrawn his claim and apologized fulsomely in the aftermath. While Emerson is not an “expert” I’d follow or trust, I have to admit I’ve enjoyed some of the humo[u]r his claim brought forth under the #FoxNewsFacts hashtag. Here are my personal favorites:

Qibla:

Undeniable proof of the Islamic takeover of a previously British city of #Birmingham, according to #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/9AvXAuEEvI

— InCapital24 (@InCapitol24) January 12, 2015

For the record, that’s the Mecca bingo hall on Kingstanding Circle, Birmingham.

Hijab:

Legislation passed in Islamified Britain forcing the Queen of England to don a traditional headscarf #FoxNewsFacts pic.twitter.com/yT0CTRTpi8

— Sarah M (@sazza_jay) January 11, 2015

Hudud:

recent convert to Islam, Queen Elizabeth ruthlessly beheading innocent U.K citizens under Sharia law #FoxNewsFacts pic.twitter.com/p093pPB03E

— moses (@musaQ_95) January 13, 2015

Isn’t that Henry V she’s beheading?

Keffiyeh:

Jam jars across Britain are becoming radicalised. #FoxNewsFacts pic.twitter.com/0O4Cfv1DIo

— Parvez Anwar (@pavanwar) January 12, 2015

[ by Charles Cameron — “publish and be damned” is one thing, “publish and be dead” is quite another! ]
.

Sigh. There are two ways or the media to respond in a situation like this, one of which is to defend freedom of speech by asserting it, while the other seeks to minimize the inflammation. Here they are, as examplified in two tweets from two journalists today:

. @Telegraph's blurring out of Muhammad cartoons – while reporting on massacre targeting same creators of those cartoons – is a betrayal.

— Brooklyn Middleton (@BklynMiddleton) January 7, 2015

the @Telegraph blurring cartoons while reporting is a very sensitive and mature move. Thank you

— ceylan ozbudak (@ceylanozbudak) January 7, 2015

Does the question of which approach is better seem too obvious to require an answer?

Which approach do you prefer, and why?

**

I’m an Old School Brit and wouldn’t use this language at the office, but I tend to agree with John Schindler‘s sentiments here:

Charlie Hebdo are kind of assholes. Van Gogh was definitely one. In the West, being an asshole is a cherished right. One we all must defend.

— John Schindler (@20committee) January 7, 2015

More generally, I don’t think we think nearly enough about the second and third order effects of our media responses to acts of terror.