What a one-sided article with no input from the Russian perspective. Seems that on matters that pertain to Syria Informed Comment tends to rely on anti-Assad sources. Why?
re: Syria, Professor Cole is suspicious of Russia. Less so of the U.S, which is difficult to understand, considering the fact that he didn't oppose U.S/Nato interventions in Libya (and look what a mess that's brought about). It should be clear to him by now that while invariably the U.S. offers humanitarian reasons for its interventions, after the government of the targeted nation falls, as far as the U.S. is concerned, said nation can go to hell in a hand-basket (& it usually does). What this shows, of course, that the intervention had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns, much to do with geopolitical interests, especially that of toppling governments that won't kow-tow to Uncle Sam, so as to expand U.S. hegemony.
The Assad govt. tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians (ref. please)? But even, if true, does that explain U.S. involvement (from the start of the so-called liberation struggle)? As if, that is, the U.S. intervention is driven by the pursuit of freedom and democracy, rather than geopolitical interests. After all, is there any more repressive society than Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which (along with Israel, occupier of Palestine), just happens to be America's top ally in the Middle East?
Professor Cole,
Surely you're aware of the reports that from the beginning of the 2011 uprising there were armed (weapons supplied by whom? Islamic extremists within the ranks of the protesters, and that thereafter their numbers steadily increased? As for NATO not having seriously influenced the outcome in Libya, your opinion contrasts sharply with media stories at the time which talked about the rebels being on the verge of annihilation by Gadaffi forces. Didn't sound then (assuming the reporting was accurate) that the insurrection had much of a chance.
The government's searching the law archives for verdicts that support its killing of U.S. citizens is akin to religious believers combing the old testament for passages that support their particular take on an issue such a premarital fornification. In other words, search and ye shall find.
The Bonaparte analogy places Egypt's sociopolitical development at level comparable to that of early 19th century France. As I recall Marx visualized military high command types, in the background ready to takeover should the elected government falter, whereupon, a military dictatorship. Later, when said government loses its luster, voila, some sort of ostensibly more democratic regime steps to the fore. Such cycles sometimes are repeated over and over, as in Central/South America for much of the last couple centuries.
Was the delegitimization of apartheid South Africa anti-White? Of course not. Nor are demands for the delegitimization of apartheid Israel anti-Jewish. In both instances what's being sought is equality and justice for an oppressed people, Black Africans in the case of South Africa, and Palestinians when it comes to Israel. Netanyahu raises the issue of antisemitism in order to divert attention from the real issue; namely, Israel's occupation of Palestine.
Is Jeffrey Goldberg a stand-in for "Dr. Strangelove". If so, then President Barack Obama must be playing an updated version of said film's President Merkin Muffley.
What a one-sided article with no input from the Russian perspective. Seems that on matters that pertain to Syria Informed Comment tends to rely on anti-Assad sources. Why?
re: Syria, Professor Cole is suspicious of Russia. Less so of the U.S, which is difficult to understand, considering the fact that he didn't oppose U.S/Nato interventions in Libya (and look what a mess that's brought about). It should be clear to him by now that while invariably the U.S. offers humanitarian reasons for its interventions, after the government of the targeted nation falls, as far as the U.S. is concerned, said nation can go to hell in a hand-basket (& it usually does). What this shows, of course, that the intervention had nothing to do with humanitarian concerns, much to do with geopolitical interests, especially that of toppling governments that won't kow-tow to Uncle Sam, so as to expand U.S. hegemony.
The Assad govt. tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians (ref. please)? But even, if true, does that explain U.S. involvement (from the start of the so-called liberation struggle)? As if, that is, the U.S. intervention is driven by the pursuit of freedom and democracy, rather than geopolitical interests. After all, is there any more repressive society than Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, which (along with Israel, occupier of Palestine), just happens to be America's top ally in the Middle East?
My take is that once the Russo-Syrian-Iraqi-Iranian-Hezbollan forces defeat IS-Al Qaeda terrorists, Syrians will find a way to reclaim their nation.
Professor Cole,
Surely you're aware of the reports that from the beginning of the 2011 uprising there were armed (weapons supplied by whom? Islamic extremists within the ranks of the protesters, and that thereafter their numbers steadily increased? As for NATO not having seriously influenced the outcome in Libya, your opinion contrasts sharply with media stories at the time which talked about the rebels being on the verge of annihilation by Gadaffi forces. Didn't sound then (assuming the reporting was accurate) that the insurrection had much of a chance.
The government's searching the law archives for verdicts that support its killing of U.S. citizens is akin to religious believers combing the old testament for passages that support their particular take on an issue such a premarital fornification. In other words, search and ye shall find.
The Bonaparte analogy places Egypt's sociopolitical development at level comparable to that of early 19th century France. As I recall Marx visualized military high command types, in the background ready to takeover should the elected government falter, whereupon, a military dictatorship. Later, when said government loses its luster, voila, some sort of ostensibly more democratic regime steps to the fore. Such cycles sometimes are repeated over and over, as in Central/South America for much of the last couple centuries.
Was the delegitimization of apartheid South Africa anti-White? Of course not. Nor are demands for the delegitimization of apartheid Israel anti-Jewish. In both instances what's being sought is equality and justice for an oppressed people, Black Africans in the case of South Africa, and Palestinians when it comes to Israel. Netanyahu raises the issue of antisemitism in order to divert attention from the real issue; namely, Israel's occupation of Palestine.
Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto
same place
different time
while the world stands by
genocide*
live
*slower in Gaza
Is Jeffrey Goldberg a stand-in for "Dr. Strangelove". If so, then President Barack Obama must be playing an updated version of said film's President Merkin Muffley.
Gaza And The Warsaw Ghetto
same place
different time
while the world stood by
genocide
live