News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 3

I don't know anything about fighting in Yemen or why the Zaidy Shia ,being the rebels according to the news,are fighting there. However, when the CBS News Anchor keeps saying that the rebels in Yemen are supported by Iran, does he have what support that or is it like other claims coming from Ssunny states oppressing to their Shia minorities while many others just repeat like parrots without real recognition to what is going on? Is it any different than the other alleged accusations like Iran's interference in Iraq or being behind the demand of the Shia Muslims for democracy in Bahrain? 

Anything Shia Muslims do is seen as must have been instigated by, if not for the service of, Iran. Not only these accusation are stated without real regard to the facts but many repeat these claimed suspicions without paying attention to the level of discrimination they suggest. In blaming things or claiming Iran behind everything the Shia do, those accusations suggest a bigotry to the level of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Shia Muslims. On the other hand it was the Saudi Government who sent troops to interfere inside Bahrain suppressing the Shia there and they seemed to also attacked the rebel in Yemen according to the news of this morning. I am not saying this to respond to a false accusation with another but I would be surprised if it turned out that the Saudi government and some other golf states are not really part or in support of playing this ISIS game and I am not throwing that just based on the character of these regimes. 

While if I discover that an accusation from Israel about the Iranian government being in support of some organization is wrong  I would think that I found some flaw, these accusations coming from the sources above, unless proven otherwise, have no value to begin with.

         

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims 2

I cannot depend much on my English listening comprehension, but it seems to me as if the CBS reporter from northern Iraq indicated or suggested in its first report on the issue that the Badr Brigade was created after the removal of Saddam. If that understanding is true then she probably should have done a better research. Badr Brigade is probably between thirty to thirty five years old. It was created during the Iraq Iran war as a militia for Iraq related purposes. It belongs to the Iraqi opposition in Iran  Mohammad Baqir Al-Hakim how was assassinated after returning back to Iraq shortly after the removal of Saddam from power. With the deportation Saddam did at the beginning of the war with Iran to any one his system classify as Iranian or from Iranian descents (I thought I wouldn't see something like that craziness happen in a democracy until I came here and knew about what the identity complex caused to happen to the people seen as Japanese during second world war and how the Supreme Court allowed itself to issue an opinion that makes so little sense, if any, regarding that), there was probably no shortage of supply of Iraqis for that brigade.  

News organizations and their reporting on Shia Muslims

Continuing from the post below

Actually, because much of the media seems to be under Jewish corruption forces finding it hard to find similar level of morality sinking with Shia Muslims, when it comes to reporting on the Shia some times the news quality actively goes to the trash regardless of the source.The claim that Iran caused an explosion in a synagogue in Argentina that killed many Jewish people is one example of that.

It is trash news because regardless of the issue with Israel, being Jewish and being Israeli are perceived , at least there, as two totally different things.So that identity confusion shouldn't be projected on others trying to take a benefit of it.   

Another example seems to be Richard Angle carelessly, to say the least, reporting on NBC about a claimed massacre supposedly done by the Shia. Despite the very suspicious vagueness of that reporting, we were still supposedly to take his reporting on that against even the signs of all the killing the Shia sustained in Iraq while being so far from responding at the same dirty level and despite being the majority.

Moreover, are we also supposed to trust the capability to distinguish facts in Syria from a reporter who acted as if he truly believe that he was abducted by the dictator forces and saved by some resistance forces? 

Finally, the winner of trash reporting on the Shia seems to be that girl on CBS news reporting from Northern Iraq. She made similar reporting on a vague massacre and speaks about even more vague accusations of killing thousands of Ssunnies while throwing in words like "notorious" on the Badr brigade without any worthy justification reporting explaining what they did to deserve being called that. One time, she was asked by the anchor how she found the fighters from the Badr brigade and in her response she spoke about how those she was with showed her their Ssunny  leader trying to show that, referring to the alleged committing of a massacre, it wont happen again, leaving it undetermined if it was an admission by them regarding their alleged committing of that massacre or her understanding of what happened.

It is hard to find any place in the media even , or probably especially, the news that is safe from being penetrated by Jewish corruption forces.

By the way, I have a justification to use "Jewish corruption forces" as much as, if not more than, that of the CBS Anchor describing ISIS as "the Islamic terror group". However, in both cases that should not imply an implication for the rest of the group.            

The blood of Shia Muslims

Seems like the world is so accustomed to see civilian Shia Muslims get attacked and killed in dirty ways that it doesn't have to count much any more. Yesterday, an attack on the Zaidy Shia in Yemen, which is a different sect than the Shia in Iraq or Iran, killed over 120 persons in Mosques. However, apparently because they also share the Shia name, on the news I was watching yesterday it was not even mentioned with those at the start and barely caught some mentioning in the middle with the news anchor speaking about it as if it was part of tit for tat between the different sects. When was the last time a Shia Muslim made an attack like these? When did it happen ever?         

Secrecy of the jury and grand jury

I don't see how justice can be served better with the secrecy of the jury and grand jury deliberation and do not understand why would people in a democratic system would choose that.  I cant see any argument anywhere close to justify that secrecy in general and even more so with control by corruption forces like the way it is here.

I am not a fan of even the secrecy of the deliberation of supreme courts but at least they write opinions. If required ,even the identity of the juries doesn't have to be revealed to show the details of the deliberation and questioning by the juries. The entire deliberation can be video recorded then revealed without showing the image of any person in the jury or even his or her real voice. 

I don't see why it is assumed that recognition of the jury that their deliberation will be revealed would not only more probably affect their decision more negatively than positively but also to the level of offsetting the benefit of letting the outside world know how the decision was reached. How many people do you know would think: Oh, there is a camera on me, lets choose the incorrect path?

In democratic systems ruling is in the hands of people and that secrecy wastes that big power and is unnecessary major hindrance to the path of justice.

At least in the past, there was the reason of the cost and proof associated with keeping a person maintaining a record. All that has gone a long time ago and all what is needed now is to turn on a video camera and let it run.

There should be a real compelling reason ,which I think very seldomly is the case, for why the deliberation and similar actions by the juries should not be revealed when that happens and not assumed it to be the correct path by default.  

Taking a life because of an expression you are not even being badgered to see or recognize is clearly an injustice at the highest level no question about it (some lives in what happened in France were taken even without choosing to make such expressions). However, if we want to talk about the issue of tolerance to freedom of expression you might be surprised by how much of the intolerance you see in Muslim countries to such expressions  is about the form not the content. On the other hand I would see much less problem with the intolerance in western countries to any questioning of the Holocaust if that intolerance was as much limited to the sarcastic or joking type about the issue. Actually, the last time I checked it seemed that the stand against the freedom of expression by some Western countries in that goes beyond that of a tolerance issue to a prosecution and some writers are wanted just for expressing views questioning the Holocaust.   

Any Muslim thinks that his prophet accepts from him to shed blood or even inflict any kind of harm on another person just because of a cartoon, is showing a deep ignorance of the Prophet that very probably could exceed by far any ignorance of the maker of these cartoons himself about the Muslims Prophet.