.
It's become very hard. Do you prefer to be the naive fool who believes it, or the heartless asshole who denies it?
How about a scholar? You can make a list of a dozen possible scenarios:
"She's real but for protection disguised herself with a fake picture"
"Israel made her up to horrify the gay demographic, obviously"
"In a work of meta-propaganda, Syria hired someone like Hill & Knowlton to make her up, so that they could later expose her as a fiction."
Etc.
When you're done, you can rip up your list as an exercise in nihilism, admit you don't know, decide this might be one of those where you'll never know.
Or you can call all the witnesses and reporters involved and try to get in on the story, track her down for real. Good luck.
As I said, it's getting pretty damn hard dealing with post-reality, with so many spaces now virtual, multiple industries devoted to lying, a breakdown between fiction and document, people even admiring known liars for their genius at it (That Madoff! That Rove! Artists, they were!) and so many idiots determined to be certain about their personal checklist of what's true and what's propaganda, or what's true and what's "conspiracy theory."
Maybe next we'll hear the Damascus Gay Girl is an ARG, made up by a progressive brandname company.
See
ARG: Conspiracy For Good (Warning: Don't click this)viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32316They'll be proud to say that the action sold their product while drawing attention to a worthy cause. Alternatively, if they're artists who devised an ARG, they'll claim they "held a mirror up to society" and invite you to learn some important lessons.
The ARG's media flaks will say it doesn't matter if it's true, since it expresses a higher truth and all's fair in love and revolution. (Are you saying it could never be true? Are you saying Syria doesn't oppress gay activists? Are you defending Assad?!)
Most people on reflection will agree with the philosophy that what matters is whether or not you want it to be true. However, this is because most people on reflection will agree they don't care either way, so why not both? No need for extremes, right? Please don't be too political. Chill and play!
Osama using his wife as a human shield was easy to dismiss. But what about today's latest: Gaddafi's rape squads, equipped with Viagra? "I can sense this story is wrong" only goes so far, obviously. ("Are you calling the ICC liars? On what evidence? Shoe me the evidence!")
The fact that the media doesn't cover the systematic mass humiliations of women in the Shi'a community conducted by Bahraini security forces exposes the hypocrisy of an ICC that's willing to indict Gaddafi in the middle of NATO bombing Libya, but not the Kalifas or Saleh for committing similar crimes, not while their countries serve as bases for US forces. And doesn't the Bahrain story merely show the prevalence in many wars of terrorism directed against women? Does the hypocrisy of the ICC and the media mean the Gaddafi Viagra story is untrue?
We can go on like this for ages...
In short:
You don't know! Except, sometimes you do. And you're obligated to find out what you can, if you're going to claim one or the other. Except, you probably won't find out with certainty, and you'll be left with your original feeling, whatever that may have been, plus a new portion of emptiness.
(Courtesy of Sandra Bagaria/COURTESY OF SANDRA BAGARIA) - Photographs of Amina Arraf released by the friend and on her Web site are of a woman in London, Jelena Lecic, who said her identity had been stolen, according to a statement from the woman’s publicist.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... print.html‘Gay Girl in Damascus’ may not be realBy Liz Sly, Published: June 8
BEIRUT — Questions emerged Wednesday about the existence and identity of a Syrian American blogger whose eloquent postings on life in Damascus and her purported detention Monday by Syrian security forces had catapulted her to global fame.
The Washington Post was among the news organizations in the United States and around the world that reported on the writings of Amina Arraf and her alleged detention, which was publicized in a posting on her blog, A Gay Girl in Damascus, by a woman who claimed to be her cousin.
But although many Syrian activists said they had corresponded with Arraf online, none acknowledged actually meeting her. A friend in Montreal, Sandra Bagaria, who started a campaign for Arraf’s release and said she knew her well, said she had corresponded with Arraf only by e-mail. Photographs of Arraf released by the friend and on her Web site are of a woman in London, Jelena Lecic, who said her identity had been stolen, according to a statement from the woman’s publicist.
The cousin, Rania Ismail, whose Facebook page identifies her as a “fulltime mommy” in Lilburn, Ga., did not respond to e-mails, although she had previously corresponded with journalists. Spokesman Mark Toner said the State Department was “seeking to confirm the details of [Arraf’s] case — including her citizenship.”
Syrian activists maintained Wednesday that they were sure Arraf existed, that she had been detained and that she had been using a fake identity to protect herself, as do most of the activists engaged in covert activity against Syria’s government at a time when the country is in the throes of a widespread popular uprising.
But alternative theories flew within the online community, including that Bagaria and Arraf are the same person, that Lecic and Arraf are the same person, and that Gay Girl in Damascus is an invention.
Bagaria, when contacted in Montreal, seemed distraught at the possibility that the person with whom she had established a close relationship online might have been using a false identity.
“I don’t know. I really can’t tell. I would love to tell you I know,” she said. “I just want it to be clarified, and then I will deal with what I should and should not feel. But for now I just want it to be a little more clear.”
If A Gay Girl in Damascus is indeed a hoax, it would be an elaborate one. Arraf’s Facebook page reads like a who’s who of the Syrian opposition movement, and although none of the activists contacted had met her, all of them said they found it difficult to believe she wasn’t real.
“My feeling is that this lady exists and that she’s been risking her life to serve her cause,” said a prominent Beirut-based activist. “But she can’t write under her real name or reveal her identity. I know many activists, and none of them reveals their real identity.”
The saga illustrates the difficulty of establishing what is really going on in Syria at a time when the government is engaged in a brutal attempt to crush the 11-week-old uprising. Most information comes from the state-sponsored media or shadowy cyber-activists who post reports and videos online.
One activist contacted in Damascus, the Syrian capital, said he doubts Arraf is real and expressed concern that the opposition’s efforts to convey to the world the regime’s ruthlessness will be undermined by the apparent fabrication.
“It’s selfish because it means real issues in the future won’t be taken seriously at all,” he said, speaking via Skype on the condition of anonymity because he fears the consequences of talking to the media.
© The Washington Post Company
