tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post3723870969427599619..comments2023-10-24T02:31:18.905-07:00Comments on insufficient respect: Syria and the End of the LeftMichael Neumannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-22876585968230308002013-06-18T10:10:03.289-07:002013-06-18T10:10:03.289-07:00As for 'bad character', no, Chomsky has al...As for 'bad character', no, Chomsky has almost certainly never adopted my contemptuous description of Chomskian ideology. How odd.<br /><br />Also odd to cite the UN Charter, a document concocted by just those great powers of bad character the left so deplores. In any case, I'm not sure why, because the US acted wrongly towards Iran, it should therefore let Assad murder and torture at will, . The comment doesn't mention the UN declaration of human rights, which suggests that letting him do so might not be a good idea. not to mention letting Iran help him. Perhaps the documents conflict. That would be no surprise, since the basic UN principle seems to be: promise everything to everyone because it sounds good.<br /><br />The rest of the comment consists of fantasy in support of the bad person ideology, from the opposition's terrible massacres to peace talks. That was kind of my point about the left, so I rest my case.Michael Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-17412773161538198452013-06-18T06:17:50.655-07:002013-06-18T06:17:50.655-07:00What a confusing ramble. What exactly is your poin...What a confusing ramble. What exactly is your point? I have NEVER heard Chomsky say that the US (or any other state for that matter) has what you call a "bad character". Can you provide references or links?<br /><br />The Obama administration continues to talk about Iran in violation of the UN Charter, which defines even threats of the use of force, as acts of war. The US has imposed sanction on Iran, which have brought great suffering (including death) to the population.<br /><br />How many times has the US supported opposition movements around the world? Terrible examples such as Central America, the Afghan Mujahadeen, and the catastrophic blunder of Iraq.<br /><br />The US and its European employees, should not give arms to anyone. They are partly guilty of the horrendous bloodshed in Syria, by giving arms to the rebels, who are also guilty of terrible massacres.<br /><br />If you genuinely want peace in Syria, you should support peace talks. If you want to take part in such talks, then you should stop threatening one of the parties. This is not negotiation, and it will not lead anywhere.<br /><br />By the way, Obama continues to authorize the assassination of people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and other places.<br /><br />Having made some good deedsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-9830142657737067492012-11-13T06:35:12.909-08:002012-11-13T06:35:12.909-08:00reply to Anonymous:
This is equivocation.
O...reply to Anonymous: <br /><br />This is equivocation. <br /><br />Of course those critical of the opposition don't 'support' Assad in the sense that they cheer him on or work on his behalf. However their stance, if it has any effect, has the effect of making life easier for Assad, of 'benefiting the régime' as the post says. Yes, in the real world, desperate struggles are 'polluted'. In this case, at least, that's a poor reason for making people or governments even more hesitant to aid the resistance. Sugar-coating the caution with the verbal sort of 'support'is simply a way of increasing the attractiveness of doing nothing.<br /><br />"I support, but... " is worse than useless.Michael Neumannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01558892758943318577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5273076348938263308.post-20164682577723023762012-11-13T05:15:25.650-08:002012-11-13T05:15:25.650-08:00Those who support Assad here in Britain are a coup...Those who support Assad here in Britain are a couple of tiny Stalinist groups; most people here therefore do support the fight against Assad, but not a few of us are concerned about the growing sectarianism, the presence of Islamists and the way that foreign interference is polluting the fight against Assad. For my part, I have seen too many struggles with a democratic content get polluted to take an uncritical view of what's happening in Syria. I didn't give unqualified, uncritical support to the movement against Mubarak in Egypt and ben Ali in Tunisia, as I could see the presence of religious sectarians -- who are now taking advantage of the situations -- and it's the same for Syria. To state that those who don't have an uncritical view of the Syrian opposition constitutes support for Assad is slanderous. -- Dr Paul, LondonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com