Hasn't the number of deaths caused in Libya been very high from the beginning, compared to Bahrain, or say, Egypt?
From the day the protests started, the numbers rapidly went into the hundreds.
I'm thinking, if the Eqyptian military under Mubarak opened fire on protesters at Tahrir Square, killing hundreds, would all of be opposed to International (Western) intervention? Would you be applying the same argument?
I agree with this proposition. Prof. Cole has provided no evidence whatsoever for his claim that the others would've gone ahead even if the US abstained.
The abstentions would be USA, China, India, Russia, Germany and Brazil. And France and UK would gone ahead with Gabon, Lebanon, Colombia, Portugal and others?
Anzalone has not made any attempt to compare the scale of the protests in Iran then and Tunisia now. Although the Iranian protests had a lot of depth, they lacked the kind of width of the protests in Tunis.
This article (http://www.aswat.com/en/node/4973) points out why the protests in Iran were very different from those in Tunisia, in spite of the existence of common grievances. One of the main reasons cited here is the diffuse nature of power in Iran and consequently, the diffuse nature of support as well. Like the previous commenters have already said, Ahmedinejad enjoys a significant amount of support.
"Ahmadinejad draws significant voter support from the poorer sections of society. At the very least, his administration can count on the backing of five million people who are Basiji volunteers and their family members. Even Green Movement leaders who insist the 2009 poll was rigged accept that ,Ahmadinejad won between 30 and 40 per cent of the vote."
Also, the "Supreme Leader" or Iran, is not someone known to have vast business interests with family members hogging a piece of the country's economic pie, a la Ben Ali.
As the scenarios are so different in both countries, it is silly to compare a reaction to one with a reaction to the other.
Also, if the regime in Iran falls, in the dramatic way it did in Tunisia, Hezbollah would probably try to get into the good books of the next regime by not taking a very radical stand against their movement, keeping in mind that the relationship with Iran is too important to lose for the sake of ideology.
So Mr. Anzalone, even if a comparable situation to TUnisia were to befall Iran, you might still not be able to watch Hezbollah stand up for the theocratic regime and say, "see they got double standards!"
Regarding the chief minister of Gujarat, it wouldn't matter even if he did say any of that.
The philosophy of his party (BJP) itself is quite clear. They say that Muslims have dual loyalties and are constitutionally incapable of loyalty to the Indian state.
This, it is said, is because their allegiances lie partly in Mecca. The same applies to Catholics as well (the Vatican).
This is best summed up in the words of the head of the RSS, which is the mother organisation, whose political wing is the BJP i.e. Gujarat CM Mr. Modi's party.
As recently as Sep 2010, none other than the highest ranking leader in Hindu right-wing political hierarchy in India has this test for Muslim to pass to prove their loyalty,
Muslims did carry the burden of proving their “patriotic credentials” and had to “remove the trust deficit” by helping to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya. For only then a “clear message would be sent out” that Muslims do not look “outside the country” and “no one will be able to point fingers at them and describe them as unpatriotic.”"
Do stories covering nascent prosperity in some godforsaken
part of the world have to begin with have to end with teenagers
letting their hair down in a watering hole? Is that the coup de
grace?
"The US Congress, especially the new Republican-dominated lower house, would pass a resolution allowing Netanyahu to dine on Salam Fayad’s liver if Tel Aviv asked them to."
>>The terrorism spread by the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Pakistan through Afghanistan continues in the name of India-US cooperation in war on terror.<<
Is there any need too provide any evidence for this or is this inherently true? If India's role is as clear as day, why don't we see any evidence?
>>India annexed Muslim-majority Kashmir after the 1947 Partition <<
Kashmir wanted to remain independent of India and Pakistan after the 1947 partition. Pakistan sent in an army of tribals. Under these circumstances, the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to India, so that Indian troops could be sent in to protect Kashmir from the tribals. India did not ANNEX Kashmir in 1947.
[In October 1947, Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict
I see that you have pointed to the recent killings of stone-throwing protestors in Kashmir, mostly young boys aged between 15 and 23.
But Arnold,
Hasn't the number of deaths caused in Libya been very high from the beginning, compared to Bahrain, or say, Egypt?
From the day the protests started, the numbers rapidly went into the hundreds.
I'm thinking, if the Eqyptian military under Mubarak opened fire on protesters at Tahrir Square, killing hundreds, would all of be opposed to International (Western) intervention? Would you be applying the same argument?
I agree with this proposition. Prof. Cole has provided no evidence whatsoever for his claim that the others would've gone ahead even if the US abstained.
The abstentions would be USA, China, India, Russia, Germany and Brazil. And France and UK would gone ahead with Gabon, Lebanon, Colombia, Portugal and others?
Hard sell.
Thank you for pointing to the post by Tom. I came across Tom Dispatch from your site.
I had read the post yesterday. Truly, it is a must-read. So passionate, yet devoid of hyperbole. I was so impressed by it that I wrote Tom a letter.
And was very glad to find it being written about here.
Anzalone has not made any attempt to compare the scale of the protests in Iran then and Tunisia now. Although the Iranian protests had a lot of depth, they lacked the kind of width of the protests in Tunis.
This article (http://www.aswat.com/en/node/4973) points out why the protests in Iran were very different from those in Tunisia, in spite of the existence of common grievances. One of the main reasons cited here is the diffuse nature of power in Iran and consequently, the diffuse nature of support as well. Like the previous commenters have already said, Ahmedinejad enjoys a significant amount of support.
"Ahmadinejad draws significant voter support from the poorer sections of society. At the very least, his administration can count on the backing of five million people who are Basiji volunteers and their family members. Even Green Movement leaders who insist the 2009 poll was rigged accept that ,Ahmadinejad won between 30 and 40 per cent of the vote."
Also, the "Supreme Leader" or Iran, is not someone known to have vast business interests with family members hogging a piece of the country's economic pie, a la Ben Ali.
As the scenarios are so different in both countries, it is silly to compare a reaction to one with a reaction to the other.
Also, if the regime in Iran falls, in the dramatic way it did in Tunisia, Hezbollah would probably try to get into the good books of the next regime by not taking a very radical stand against their movement, keeping in mind that the relationship with Iran is too important to lose for the sake of ideology.
So Mr. Anzalone, even if a comparable situation to TUnisia were to befall Iran, you might still not be able to watch Hezbollah stand up for the theocratic regime and say, "see they got double standards!"
Prof. Cole,
Regarding the chief minister of Gujarat, it wouldn't matter even if he did say any of that.
The philosophy of his party (BJP) itself is quite clear. They say that Muslims have dual loyalties and are constitutionally incapable of loyalty to the Indian state.
This, it is said, is because their allegiances lie partly in Mecca. The same applies to Catholics as well (the Vatican).
This is best summed up in the words of the head of the RSS, which is the mother organisation, whose political wing is the BJP i.e. Gujarat CM Mr. Modi's party.
As recently as Sep 2010, none other than the highest ranking leader in Hindu right-wing political hierarchy in India has this test for Muslim to pass to prove their loyalty,
Muslims did carry the burden of proving their “patriotic credentials” and had to “remove the trust deficit” by helping to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya. For only then a “clear message would be sent out” that Muslims do not look “outside the country” and “no one will be able to point fingers at them and describe them as unpatriotic.”"
http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/15/stories/2010091555871600.htm
Do stories covering nascent prosperity in some godforsaken
part of the world have to begin with have to end with teenagers
letting their hair down in a watering hole? Is that the coup de
grace?
Quote for the day -
"The US Congress, especially the new Republican-dominated lower house, would pass a resolution allowing Netanyahu to dine on Salam Fayad’s liver if Tel Aviv asked them to."
Any vital infrastructure and key resources in Pakistan, Professor?
Apart from the WMBs that is - Weapons of Mass Blackmail
>>The terrorism spread by the Indian intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) in Pakistan through Afghanistan continues in the name of India-US cooperation in war on terror.<<
Is there any need too provide any evidence for this or is this inherently true? If India's role is as clear as day, why don't we see any evidence?
>>India annexed Muslim-majority Kashmir after the 1947 Partition <<
Kashmir wanted to remain independent of India and Pakistan after the 1947 partition. Pakistan sent in an army of tribals. Under these circumstances, the Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to India, so that Indian troops could be sent in to protect Kashmir from the tribals. India did not ANNEX Kashmir in 1947.
[In October 1947, Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir and Pakistani tribals from Dir entered Kashmir intending to liberate it from Dogra rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession that was accepted by the government of India on 27 October 1947.] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict
I see that you have pointed to the recent killings of stone-throwing protestors in Kashmir, mostly young boys aged between 15 and 23.
Your readers may find this article useful -
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne231010Coverstory.asp
Brazil still Reaching out to Obama on Nuclear Deal
This letter is a must-read. Thank you for this.
And thank you Prof. Cole for being a sustainable enlightenment industry.