Barring the possibility of a fabricated story by the US intelligence, and assuming that some organization indeed did their best to carry out an actual attack, it would seem that this incompetent dude was the best asset at their disposal. That certainly is not descriptive of the Iranian Quds Force. A much more plausible scenario (again, barring conspiracy theories involving the US government) would be if MEK members posing as Quds Force agents lured an impressionable troubled Iranian man to carry out the attack or get caught trying, believing all along that he was a Quds Force agent. They have the personel on the ground in Iran, the funding capacity, and the political motive as their past covert operations and their pro-war lobbying efforts in the US have shown.
Since the main suspect is apprehended and his identity and connections in Iran are presumably well-known, the US should simply demand an arrest warrant for the other suspect via interpol, share intelligence with Iran and ask Iran's cooperation to investigate the source of his funding. At this point, I doubt there's any one more fervently trying to get to the bottom of this than the Iranian intelligence itself.
Your comment strikes me as sadly self-defeating and lacking self-awareness.
It shouldn't be hard to realize how your "underlying assumption" and the undertones in your "language" when you say "...Which country? Qatar? Dubai? Turkey?..." betrays an arrogant supremacist ideology that considers others as irredeemably lesser and doesn't even care to (or lacks the integrity to) declare it openly and explain "why exactly".
The dismissive language you used in your "blanket" psuedo statement is extremely offensive to any non-israeli middle-eastern person and in a way summarizes the core cause of the conflict.
Why *should'nt* Israel be treated "just as another country in the middle east" ? Is it not a society governed by a modern government that engages in politics to advance its own interests like any other country? Has it not invaded, occupied and practiced ethnic cleansing like many other countries in history? Does it not have its own share of religious bigotry and ethnocentric ideology? Has it not been practicing so many aspects of what we call Apartheid?
How can you call it offensive to suggest that Israel is in some ways like any other country, without offending other middle-easterns who sense your implied disdain towards them?
Your main message that "come on! Israel is so obviously different from/better than other middle eastern countries that I don't even need to provide any evidence" has the hallmarks of an ideologically internalized worldview that evades objective examination. Resolving this phenomenon is the first step to peace.
Hitchins could have accounted for Mao and Stalin (and also Milton Friedman) by pointing out that "believing in religion" is catastrophic in that it is an instance of the more fundamental evil of "believing religiously". Trust in science is essentially different, because all it takes a physicist to trash the big and mighty Theory of Relativity is a sound mathematical argument or a few disproving experimental results. There is nothing "sacred" about anything in science. I think man stepped onto the slippery slope the moment he acquired the capacity to conceive/invent the notion of sanctity.
Atheism, in as much as it revolves around a core belief (god does NOT exist), is itself prone to the same theoretical flaws. The correct attitude toward religion is to render it irrelevant by learning to ignore it categorically. "Religious Beliefs" should not be a field in say your Facebook profile if "Favorite Pencil Brand" or "Opinion about the taste of Tequila" aren't, and as long as it is, the answer should be "N/A".
Sanchez's reaction to Stewart's satire/occasionaly-vaccuous-mockery was definitely immature and un-proffessional. But his strange fate makes one wonder if there is some truth to his implied message. Since when is it a punishable crime to say that a particular group is or isn't a "minority" or if they are "oppressed"? Such a statement may be categorized as true/false, but not appropriate/offensive, and you of all people, Prof. Cole, should understand what this sort of intellectual terrorization and stigmatization does to a free society. By these standards, no true scholar in sociology or history or political science including yourself should be allowed to keep their jobs.
And will someone please explain to me why it is so wrong to suggest that a person who owns a business, "controls" that business? I'm sure I wouldn't be offended if you said I "control" my restaurant, but somehow, saying that this or that billionaire owner of a TV channel controls what he owns, offends people. Maybe this is a symptom of the gnawing realization that owning the means of dissemination of information is different from owning a restaurant, that perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong about allowing the media to be the private property of a billionaire. But our attitude seems to be to crucify those who remind us of this disquieting reality rather than to condemn the social order that allows such evil to take place in the first place.
In any case, Sanchez is as much a victim of our prejudices and irresponsibilities as his own error.
By the way, he was the only major TV anchor who investigated the breakout of the Gaza war and demonstrated that it was an Israeli incitement that started it. I had a feeling he wouldn't last long.
It is incredibly refreshing to see the persistence and intellectual integrity of individuals like you, and a few words of gratitude and encouragement are the least one can offer in return.
Fortunately, I think more people understand and identify with your message than one might realize today, and with the opportunities provided by today's digital media and social networking, it is only a matter of time before this growing accumulation of knowledge matures into praxis.
So, thank you, and keep up the good work.
Barring the possibility of a fabricated story by the US intelligence, and assuming that some organization indeed did their best to carry out an actual attack, it would seem that this incompetent dude was the best asset at their disposal. That certainly is not descriptive of the Iranian Quds Force. A much more plausible scenario (again, barring conspiracy theories involving the US government) would be if MEK members posing as Quds Force agents lured an impressionable troubled Iranian man to carry out the attack or get caught trying, believing all along that he was a Quds Force agent. They have the personel on the ground in Iran, the funding capacity, and the political motive as their past covert operations and their pro-war lobbying efforts in the US have shown.
Since the main suspect is apprehended and his identity and connections in Iran are presumably well-known, the US should simply demand an arrest warrant for the other suspect via interpol, share intelligence with Iran and ask Iran's cooperation to investigate the source of his funding. At this point, I doubt there's any one more fervently trying to get to the bottom of this than the Iranian intelligence itself.
Hey Adam,
Your comment strikes me as sadly self-defeating and lacking self-awareness.
It shouldn't be hard to realize how your "underlying assumption" and the undertones in your "language" when you say "...Which country? Qatar? Dubai? Turkey?..." betrays an arrogant supremacist ideology that considers others as irredeemably lesser and doesn't even care to (or lacks the integrity to) declare it openly and explain "why exactly".
The dismissive language you used in your "blanket" psuedo statement is extremely offensive to any non-israeli middle-eastern person and in a way summarizes the core cause of the conflict.
Why *should'nt* Israel be treated "just as another country in the middle east" ? Is it not a society governed by a modern government that engages in politics to advance its own interests like any other country? Has it not invaded, occupied and practiced ethnic cleansing like many other countries in history? Does it not have its own share of religious bigotry and ethnocentric ideology? Has it not been practicing so many aspects of what we call Apartheid?
How can you call it offensive to suggest that Israel is in some ways like any other country, without offending other middle-easterns who sense your implied disdain towards them?
Your main message that "come on! Israel is so obviously different from/better than other middle eastern countries that I don't even need to provide any evidence" has the hallmarks of an ideologically internalized worldview that evades objective examination. Resolving this phenomenon is the first step to peace.
Hitchins could have accounted for Mao and Stalin (and also Milton Friedman) by pointing out that "believing in religion" is catastrophic in that it is an instance of the more fundamental evil of "believing religiously". Trust in science is essentially different, because all it takes a physicist to trash the big and mighty Theory of Relativity is a sound mathematical argument or a few disproving experimental results. There is nothing "sacred" about anything in science. I think man stepped onto the slippery slope the moment he acquired the capacity to conceive/invent the notion of sanctity.
Atheism, in as much as it revolves around a core belief (god does NOT exist), is itself prone to the same theoretical flaws. The correct attitude toward religion is to render it irrelevant by learning to ignore it categorically. "Religious Beliefs" should not be a field in say your Facebook profile if "Favorite Pencil Brand" or "Opinion about the taste of Tequila" aren't, and as long as it is, the answer should be "N/A".
right?
Sanchez's reaction to Stewart's satire/occasionaly-vaccuous-mockery was definitely immature and un-proffessional. But his strange fate makes one wonder if there is some truth to his implied message. Since when is it a punishable crime to say that a particular group is or isn't a "minority" or if they are "oppressed"? Such a statement may be categorized as true/false, but not appropriate/offensive, and you of all people, Prof. Cole, should understand what this sort of intellectual terrorization and stigmatization does to a free society. By these standards, no true scholar in sociology or history or political science including yourself should be allowed to keep their jobs.
And will someone please explain to me why it is so wrong to suggest that a person who owns a business, "controls" that business? I'm sure I wouldn't be offended if you said I "control" my restaurant, but somehow, saying that this or that billionaire owner of a TV channel controls what he owns, offends people. Maybe this is a symptom of the gnawing realization that owning the means of dissemination of information is different from owning a restaurant, that perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong about allowing the media to be the private property of a billionaire. But our attitude seems to be to crucify those who remind us of this disquieting reality rather than to condemn the social order that allows such evil to take place in the first place.
In any case, Sanchez is as much a victim of our prejudices and irresponsibilities as his own error.
By the way, he was the only major TV anchor who investigated the breakout of the Gaza war and demonstrated that it was an Israeli incitement that started it. I had a feeling he wouldn't last long.
Prof. Cole,
It is incredibly refreshing to see the persistence and intellectual integrity of individuals like you, and a few words of gratitude and encouragement are the least one can offer in return.
Fortunately, I think more people understand and identify with your message than one might realize today, and with the opportunities provided by today's digital media and social networking, it is only a matter of time before this growing accumulation of knowledge matures into praxis.
So, thank you, and keep up the good work.