The Netanyahu government is being opportunistic with the three teens' murders. They jumped at any excuse to escalate tension with Hamas right when Hamas and Fatah had reached an accord. We hardly hear about the actual culprits of the three murders; we only hear irresponsible cries for "revenge".
I have to say that I find articles like this pointless, in the respect that they are only posted to sympathetic websites and seemingly are read only by people who are in agreement with the article's points already.
Instead, I really want to see McCain, Graham and their like directly confronted with the points of this article. Every single time we see these senators, no one ever questions their assertions. McCain, Graham, etc. have to hold town meetings and public appearances, don't they? Instead of posting this article to here and "Americans Against the Tea Party", how about someone verbally summarize this article to McCain and Graham's faces?
I don't feel Dr. Cole has anything to apologize for regarding support of the uprising. The only alternative you seem to offer is to let dictatorial regimes exist interminably. We can't let the issues that arise after the fall of an unjust order be an excuse to never resolve the unjust order.
I thought the parliament vote was only to wait to hear the UN Inspectors' report. How can they vote to not take action AT ALL, even regardless of the report?
Like I said with Eurofrank, the rebels deliberately killing their own people to stage a false flag operation is a very extreme premise that would need extraordinary evidence.
Juan, Hagel seemed to struggle to respond to Graham's questions: "Name one person here who's been intimidated by the Jewish lobby." "Name one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing due to pressure by the Israeli or Jewish lobby." It might be worth it, then, to write up a blog post specifically answering those questions, so that people criticizing the hardline pro-AIPAC stance have a reference.
Has anyone done a comprehensive profile of every group fighting as "Syrian opposition", and the interaction between groups? Can any of these groups be convincingly cleared of responsibility for this terrorist attack?
And why would the Free Syrian Army make an accusation of the Syrian government bombing their own people in a false flag attack? That's on the level of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They hurt their credibility if they insist on such an implausible scenario.
This is a U.S. president address U.S. residents. So of course he is going to focus on the countrymen's own losses. When Khamenei or Ahmadinejad discuss the danger of war in their own speeches, no one expects them to focus on any U.S. loss of life.
A dictatorship is never the true country. Dictatorships fall along with other governments. Cultures and values are the true faces of countries. There's a true Iran, there's a true Korea, there was a true Russia during Soviet times.
Osama Bin Laden repeatedly stated that he wanted to inflict economic damage on the West. Make fighting al-Qaeda cripplingly expensive. It's not so implausible then, that the religious fundamentalists in charge in Iran could have similar hopes of the west breaking their own economies in their effort to sanction Iran.
2011 was last year, and I didn't notice Juan Cole repeatedly using that context for that phrase regularly. Has he been using that context recently?
Do you feel that the central government destroying a rival regime by force is always the correct response to such a regime's appearance? Regardless of the legitimacy and the behavior of either the central government or the rival? For example, was the Sakaashvili government's attempt to overrun the South Ossetia regime justified, and the Russian government's prevention of this attempt unjust then?
I don't think the situation in Syria has been objectively described? How much of the opposition is popular protests and how much is armed groups such as the Free Syrian Army? I don't feel I know the true extent and the commonality between these two groups; western media certainly meshes the two together. So when we look at military action, we don't know how the situation has developped? How much was the military action a response to an armed group's attack? WAS the action a response to begin with? In the former case, was the casualty rate among civilians reasonable or excessive? Everything I've read about Syria is heavily biased on one side. Mainstream Western Media paints a picture of the Syrian military mowing down peaceful protestors, and automatically assumes the FSA and other armed groups have the support of the protestors. On the other hand, Assad apologists paint every military action as a response to an FSA, and they justify the actions completely, no matter what the cost of civilian life. There's no clarity on the situation in Syria, just bias.
Cairo and Alexandria are not liberated territory because the transition has not been completed yet. Once the Tantawi regime is swept aside, and presuming free and fair elections for parliament and the presidency, they will then be liberated.
Why do you say "necessarily violently"? Do you really think that liberation can ONLY be achieved by violence?
And by that logic, wouldn't it be then justified to support the armed groups opposing the Baath regime with force? You say violence is necessary, so then to bring down the Assad dictatorship we can't rely on peaceful protestors; we have to back violent groups like the Free Syrian Army to achieve liberation?
Why be so comfortable with nuclear proliferation, legal or otherwise? Shouldn't we instead be pressuring Israel to fully disclose its nuclear weapons capabilities, and then work on a disarmament agreement to make the middle east a nuclear free zone and remove the motivation to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities on all sides?
Egyptians needed Mubarak to leave before they could have a legitimate transition to democracy. Many want the Tantawi regime to leave as well before any presidential elections, and question the legitimacy of the parliamentary elections under that regime's thumb. Why is asking Assad to step aside different from asking Mubarak, and Saleh for the matter, to do the same?
You then spend three paragraphs on your rigid dogma that everything rotates around Israel's legitimacy, and you use that to spin whole narratives about Feltman and Obama's motives without concrete proof. We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of who's the good guys or bad guys that your dogma has defined.
Why do you keep connecting the pipeline to Gaza? Neither issue has anything to do with the other.
And religious parties are benefiting from elections run by the SCAF. The religious parties seem to be collaborating with the SCAF rather than working to expedite their removal.
Since Syria is indeed a major patron of Hizbullah, is Nazrullah condemning the opposition really news?
I thought Hizbullah's central ideology was the destruction of Israel, not defense against Israeli agression. Actually, I would be supportive of Hizbullah if it really did drop its goal of destroying Israeli, instead replacing that goal with a principle of defending Lebanese sovereignity from aggression from Israel or anyone else. And perhaps the loss of Syrian support will cause Hizbullah to derive its support more from Lebanese citizens.
---------------------------------------------
I with the Obama administration really would use leverage on Israel, to oblige Israel to return the Golan Heights the moment the Baathists are ousted.
This move for statehood shines the truth on how Israel has used negotiations as a stalling tactic while expanding settlements with impunity. Hopefully this move will enable Palestine to act on its own behalf.
Assuming that Palestine winds up with observer status; I think the most likely outcome. How can this be used to pressure Israel to ultimately close down the West Bank settlements? I'd like to hear a strategy.
Is there any way the expatriate workers could be a factor in the Bahrain movement? For instance, could expatriate workers sympathize with the Shi'ite community due to its lack of political power and strike in solidarity? Or could the workers side with the Sunnis instead because the Sunnis pay their salaries?
I'm most intrigued by how the protest movements will work in the context of an Arabian peninsula monarchy. Protesters are saying they want a Constitutional Monarchy, but I wonder if the monarchy can survive a democratized Bahrain. Does the Bahraini throne have any legitimacy? (BTW: Aren't the titles "Emir" and "King" arbitrary? I don't think it makes much difference if the Khalifas call themselves Emir or King.)
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
You have a hard time feeling sorry for someone whose child has been murdered?
You really think killing non-combatents is a valid way to combat the occupation?
The Netanyahu government is being opportunistic with the three teens' murders. They jumped at any excuse to escalate tension with Hamas right when Hamas and Fatah had reached an accord. We hardly hear about the actual culprits of the three murders; we only hear irresponsible cries for "revenge".
I have to say that I find articles like this pointless, in the respect that they are only posted to sympathetic websites and seemingly are read only by people who are in agreement with the article's points already.
Instead, I really want to see McCain, Graham and their like directly confronted with the points of this article. Every single time we see these senators, no one ever questions their assertions. McCain, Graham, etc. have to hold town meetings and public appearances, don't they? Instead of posting this article to here and "Americans Against the Tea Party", how about someone verbally summarize this article to McCain and Graham's faces?
But are those troops intimidating groups of people that want to vote in opposition? Are there boycotts by such groups?
A cross sectarian political infrastructure should not have to be a dictatorship.
Hopefully, a boycott movement can help pressure Israel to shut down all West Bank settlements and move the people back to Israel Proper.
What do you mean by Sbrenca?
I don't feel Dr. Cole has anything to apologize for regarding support of the uprising. The only alternative you seem to offer is to let dictatorial regimes exist interminably. We can't let the issues that arise after the fall of an unjust order be an excuse to never resolve the unjust order.
I thought the parliament vote was only to wait to hear the UN Inspectors' report. How can they vote to not take action AT ALL, even regardless of the report?
Is anyone in the current administration defending the Reagan Administration's actions, though?
Like I said with Eurofrank, the rebels deliberately killing their own people to stage a false flag operation is a very extreme premise that would need extraordinary evidence.
Why did she have no doubt?
That's a pretty extreme accusation: rebels killing their own people.
How pure can it be if "with the help of the military" is true?
Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Can't the protestors oblige the government to call snap elections?
Also, if the opposition replaces Erdogan's party, how will that affect Turkey's support of the rebels in Syria?
Juan, Hagel seemed to struggle to respond to Graham's questions: "Name one person here who's been intimidated by the Jewish lobby." "Name one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing due to pressure by the Israeli or Jewish lobby." It might be worth it, then, to write up a blog post specifically answering those questions, so that people criticizing the hardline pro-AIPAC stance have a reference.
Has anyone done a comprehensive profile of every group fighting as "Syrian opposition", and the interaction between groups? Can any of these groups be convincingly cleared of responsibility for this terrorist attack?
And why would the Free Syrian Army make an accusation of the Syrian government bombing their own people in a false flag attack? That's on the level of 9/11 conspiracy theories. They hurt their credibility if they insist on such an implausible scenario.
This is a U.S. president address U.S. residents. So of course he is going to focus on the countrymen's own losses. When Khamenei or Ahmadinejad discuss the danger of war in their own speeches, no one expects them to focus on any U.S. loss of life.
A dictatorship is never the true country. Dictatorships fall along with other governments. Cultures and values are the true faces of countries. There's a true Iran, there's a true Korea, there was a true Russia during Soviet times.
Which you know would get this humanitarian project instantly get labelled an Isreali plot if we did use Israeli bases.
Mubarak would still be president if protesters emigratd. Stay and fight instead.
Osama Bin Laden repeatedly stated that he wanted to inflict economic damage on the West. Make fighting al-Qaeda cripplingly expensive. It's not so implausible then, that the religious fundamentalists in charge in Iran could have similar hopes of the west breaking their own economies in their effort to sanction Iran.
2011 was last year, and I didn't notice Juan Cole repeatedly using that context for that phrase regularly. Has he been using that context recently?
Do you feel that the central government destroying a rival regime by force is always the correct response to such a regime's appearance? Regardless of the legitimacy and the behavior of either the central government or the rival? For example, was the Sakaashvili government's attempt to overrun the South Ossetia regime justified, and the Russian government's prevention of this attempt unjust then?
I don't think the situation in Syria has been objectively described? How much of the opposition is popular protests and how much is armed groups such as the Free Syrian Army? I don't feel I know the true extent and the commonality between these two groups; western media certainly meshes the two together. So when we look at military action, we don't know how the situation has developped? How much was the military action a response to an armed group's attack? WAS the action a response to begin with? In the former case, was the casualty rate among civilians reasonable or excessive? Everything I've read about Syria is heavily biased on one side. Mainstream Western Media paints a picture of the Syrian military mowing down peaceful protestors, and automatically assumes the FSA and other armed groups have the support of the protestors. On the other hand, Assad apologists paint every military action as a response to an FSA, and they justify the actions completely, no matter what the cost of civilian life. There's no clarity on the situation in Syria, just bias.
Cairo and Alexandria are not liberated territory because the transition has not been completed yet. Once the Tantawi regime is swept aside, and presuming free and fair elections for parliament and the presidency, they will then be liberated.
Why do you say "necessarily violently"? Do you really think that liberation can ONLY be achieved by violence?
And by that logic, wouldn't it be then justified to support the armed groups opposing the Baath regime with force? You say violence is necessary, so then to bring down the Assad dictatorship we can't rely on peaceful protestors; we have to back violent groups like the Free Syrian Army to achieve liberation?
Why be so comfortable with nuclear proliferation, legal or otherwise? Shouldn't we instead be pressuring Israel to fully disclose its nuclear weapons capabilities, and then work on a disarmament agreement to make the middle east a nuclear free zone and remove the motivation to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities on all sides?
No one is pushing for an invasion or occupation.
Egyptians needed Mubarak to leave before they could have a legitimate transition to democracy. Many want the Tantawi regime to leave as well before any presidential elections, and question the legitimacy of the parliamentary elections under that regime's thumb. Why is asking Assad to step aside different from asking Mubarak, and Saleh for the matter, to do the same?
You then spend three paragraphs on your rigid dogma that everything rotates around Israel's legitimacy, and you use that to spin whole narratives about Feltman and Obama's motives without concrete proof. We shouldn't be forced to play by the rules of who's the good guys or bad guys that your dogma has defined.
Is there any possible link between this bombing and the bombing that has occurred in Damascus?
Why do you keep connecting the pipeline to Gaza? Neither issue has anything to do with the other.
And religious parties are benefiting from elections run by the SCAF. The religious parties seem to be collaborating with the SCAF rather than working to expedite their removal.
Since Syria is indeed a major patron of Hizbullah, is Nazrullah condemning the opposition really news?
I thought Hizbullah's central ideology was the destruction of Israel, not defense against Israeli agression. Actually, I would be supportive of Hizbullah if it really did drop its goal of destroying Israeli, instead replacing that goal with a principle of defending Lebanese sovereignity from aggression from Israel or anyone else. And perhaps the loss of Syrian support will cause Hizbullah to derive its support more from Lebanese citizens.
---------------------------------------------
I with the Obama administration really would use leverage on Israel, to oblige Israel to return the Golan Heights the moment the Baathists are ousted.
This move for statehood shines the truth on how Israel has used negotiations as a stalling tactic while expanding settlements with impunity. Hopefully this move will enable Palestine to act on its own behalf.
Assuming that Palestine winds up with observer status; I think the most likely outcome. How can this be used to pressure Israel to ultimately close down the West Bank settlements? I'd like to hear a strategy.
Is there any way the expatriate workers could be a factor in the Bahrain movement? For instance, could expatriate workers sympathize with the Shi'ite community due to its lack of political power and strike in solidarity? Or could the workers side with the Sunnis instead because the Sunnis pay their salaries?
I'm most intrigued by how the protest movements will work in the context of an Arabian peninsula monarchy. Protesters are saying they want a Constitutional Monarchy, but I wonder if the monarchy can survive a democratized Bahrain. Does the Bahraini throne have any legitimacy? (BTW: Aren't the titles "Emir" and "King" arbitrary? I don't think it makes much difference if the Khalifas call themselves Emir or King.)