I agree that Daesh has to be rolled up, but I'm sure bombing is not the way to do it. Negotiations (however difficult) and economic measures will be far more effective. Let's find out where Daesh got and getq its resources from - deserting regular soldiers and officers, I suppose, and who is buying their oil - Turkey, I suppose. Let's do something about that first. Every bomb or drone attack merely aggravates the problem. I think it also has to be clear that the West has a very severe image and credibility problem in the Middle East, and bombing is certainly not going to change that.
Very relevant observation. If Mr Montaux had targeted only synagogues, or had been a muslim, the media would not stop reporting. Massive crackdowns, arrests, stories of masterminds, connexions to IS, Al Qaida, etc. would be al over the place. Everything to confirm this anti-semitism omnipresent in France, the danger of Muslims, etc. etc.
But now: just a few lines in the press, a couple of seconds on TV.
BTW: this is the correct way to treat this type of looneys in the media, the point is that the media grossly exagerate in case of muslims as perpetrator or Jews as victim.
Please find here the reaction of HRW on the US Airstrike on an Afghan hospital in October 2016:
"Human Rights Watch called for an impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into the incident to establish the circumstances of the attack, and urged the US to review its targeting procedures to ensure such incidents do not reoccur."
No demands for a UNSC intervention. I wonder what causes the marked difference in tone...
One small question: I was just wondering if HRW reacted the same way when this hospital in Afghanistan was bombed last year, (number of casualties 40-something), and the perpetrator was the US Army? Can someone tell me?
What I find striking, is the ease with which "the West" habitually dismisses elections delivering results which are not to their liking (Palestine, East Ukraine, Krim, and upcoming Syria are but the latest examples). Nevertheless, the West is ever so eager to use elections which deliver results that please them (eg Kosovo, where a rather small margin of 55% voted for independence in heavily criticised elections).
This manner of acting only reinforces the widespread belief that the West uses double standards, and very effectively undermines the case for democracy.
So Assad and his family enriched themselves. NO big deal, and certainly not a reason to overthrow him. If it was, why is Kabila still in power in Congo, Bouteflika in Algeria, King Abdellah in Jordan, etc. etc.
Assad never got the fair press he deserved. Syria was relatively peaceful and relatively well governed until rebels, backed by Saudi Arabia and other model democracies as Qatar and the UAE, and with consent (and support) of the USA started the "spontaneous" revolution. Look where we are 5 years on.
As in the case of Libya, Irak, Afghanistan, .... the population has suffered enormously and would be much, much, better off without the revolution.
Assad should remain in power until another leaedr is elected. No forced regime change.
I do not agree at all. The objective of these attacks, like the objective of the attacks in Paris, New York, etc. is revenge. Revenge for the Europeans bombing and killing muslims, innocent muslims by the scores in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Revenge for Europeans professing democracy, whilst supporting the regimes in countries as Saudi-Arabia and Israel. Revenge for toppling leaders that refuse to cooperate with the West, in Afghanisatn, Iraqq, Libya, Syria.
It is a big mistake to portray the attacks as an assault on our way of life or on our way of organising the state. Nevertheless, this is a very convenient way for western leaders to set away muslim suicide bombers. It will easily mobilize people against the attackers ans will deflect all attention form the real grounds of the attacks.
Excellent article! The bias in the press in the West is really appalling. Attacks with innocent victims in the West are invariably followed by in depth journalism of the pain felt by family, friends and by-standers, lofty statements by politicians, on how right the west is and how looney the attackers are etc., etc. Innocent victims in the Middle East are dealt with with three or four lines on page two in the papers, and a 15 second item on the TV, the idea being that they're simply all crazy back there. Sometimes even the attack is reported as a funny event: "Bride and Boom" (hahaha, great joke) in stead of bride and groom, when yet another marriage is mistaken for a terrorst gathering.
Halle Juan,
I regularly visit your website, and generally agree with your views and the views expressed by guest authors. The one big exception is Syria. If the west had supported Assad right from the start, there would never have been a "spontaneous" revolt, which in reality was well orchestrated and financed by Arab leaders not a hair better than Assad. There would never have been a bloody civil war, nor tens of thousands of victims, and maybe not even IS/Daesh.
Knowing the chaotic situation in Libya, after removing dictator Khadaffi by illegal means, the West should have known better. I think the majority of the Libyans were much happier with Khadaffi than with the present situation, and I'm afraid the same goes for the majority of the Syrians as far as Assad is concerned.
I do have one question: why are the refugees from Syria and Iraq coming so massively now, at this moment? The civil war in Syria started 4 years ago, Iraq has been a chaos for at least 10 years, IS/Daesh is around for more than a year - so what is driving these people to Europe now. What event has triggered this mass movement? I'd really like to know your ideas on this.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Dear Juan,
can't you find a way to lay your hands on this list and publish it?
So controlling Isil is just a pretext, and the Kurds are being abused once again...
I agree that Daesh has to be rolled up, but I'm sure bombing is not the way to do it. Negotiations (however difficult) and economic measures will be far more effective. Let's find out where Daesh got and getq its resources from - deserting regular soldiers and officers, I suppose, and who is buying their oil - Turkey, I suppose. Let's do something about that first. Every bomb or drone attack merely aggravates the problem. I think it also has to be clear that the West has a very severe image and credibility problem in the Middle East, and bombing is certainly not going to change that.
Very relevant observation. If Mr Montaux had targeted only synagogues, or had been a muslim, the media would not stop reporting. Massive crackdowns, arrests, stories of masterminds, connexions to IS, Al Qaida, etc. would be al over the place. Everything to confirm this anti-semitism omnipresent in France, the danger of Muslims, etc. etc.
But now: just a few lines in the press, a couple of seconds on TV.
BTW: this is the correct way to treat this type of looneys in the media, the point is that the media grossly exagerate in case of muslims as perpetrator or Jews as victim.
Please find here the reaction of HRW on the US Airstrike on an Afghan hospital in October 2016:
"Human Rights Watch called for an impartial, thorough and transparent investigation into the incident to establish the circumstances of the attack, and urged the US to review its targeting procedures to ensure such incidents do not reoccur."
No demands for a UNSC intervention. I wonder what causes the marked difference in tone...
One small question: I was just wondering if HRW reacted the same way when this hospital in Afghanistan was bombed last year, (number of casualties 40-something), and the perpetrator was the US Army? Can someone tell me?
What I find striking, is the ease with which "the West" habitually dismisses elections delivering results which are not to their liking (Palestine, East Ukraine, Krim, and upcoming Syria are but the latest examples). Nevertheless, the West is ever so eager to use elections which deliver results that please them (eg Kosovo, where a rather small margin of 55% voted for independence in heavily criticised elections).
This manner of acting only reinforces the widespread belief that the West uses double standards, and very effectively undermines the case for democracy.
I wonder why are you so light on this, Mr Cole?
So Assad and his family enriched themselves. NO big deal, and certainly not a reason to overthrow him. If it was, why is Kabila still in power in Congo, Bouteflika in Algeria, King Abdellah in Jordan, etc. etc.
Assad never got the fair press he deserved. Syria was relatively peaceful and relatively well governed until rebels, backed by Saudi Arabia and other model democracies as Qatar and the UAE, and with consent (and support) of the USA started the "spontaneous" revolution. Look where we are 5 years on.
As in the case of Libya, Irak, Afghanistan, .... the population has suffered enormously and would be much, much, better off without the revolution.
Assad should remain in power until another leaedr is elected. No forced regime change.
I do not agree at all. The objective of these attacks, like the objective of the attacks in Paris, New York, etc. is revenge. Revenge for the Europeans bombing and killing muslims, innocent muslims by the scores in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. Revenge for Europeans professing democracy, whilst supporting the regimes in countries as Saudi-Arabia and Israel. Revenge for toppling leaders that refuse to cooperate with the West, in Afghanisatn, Iraqq, Libya, Syria.
It is a big mistake to portray the attacks as an assault on our way of life or on our way of organising the state. Nevertheless, this is a very convenient way for western leaders to set away muslim suicide bombers. It will easily mobilize people against the attackers ans will deflect all attention form the real grounds of the attacks.
Excellent article! The bias in the press in the West is really appalling. Attacks with innocent victims in the West are invariably followed by in depth journalism of the pain felt by family, friends and by-standers, lofty statements by politicians, on how right the west is and how looney the attackers are etc., etc. Innocent victims in the Middle East are dealt with with three or four lines on page two in the papers, and a 15 second item on the TV, the idea being that they're simply all crazy back there. Sometimes even the attack is reported as a funny event: "Bride and Boom" (hahaha, great joke) in stead of bride and groom, when yet another marriage is mistaken for a terrorst gathering.
I feel deeply ashamed
Halle Juan,
I regularly visit your website, and generally agree with your views and the views expressed by guest authors. The one big exception is Syria. If the west had supported Assad right from the start, there would never have been a "spontaneous" revolt, which in reality was well orchestrated and financed by Arab leaders not a hair better than Assad. There would never have been a bloody civil war, nor tens of thousands of victims, and maybe not even IS/Daesh.
Knowing the chaotic situation in Libya, after removing dictator Khadaffi by illegal means, the West should have known better. I think the majority of the Libyans were much happier with Khadaffi than with the present situation, and I'm afraid the same goes for the majority of the Syrians as far as Assad is concerned.
I do have one question: why are the refugees from Syria and Iraq coming so massively now, at this moment? The civil war in Syria started 4 years ago, Iraq has been a chaos for at least 10 years, IS/Daesh is around for more than a year - so what is driving these people to Europe now. What event has triggered this mass movement? I'd really like to know your ideas on this.
Best regards,
T. van Ellen