Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Hateful Analysis


Hate Speech Or Scholarly Analysis?

The Assad Regime and its Russian allies have been trying for years to bomb moderation into Syria's Sunni population to no avail.

Once we ignore how cause-and-effect work and turn the issue into a chicken-and-an-egg question, then, there will be no reason why this racist screed cannot pass for scholarly analysis.

Indeed, this is the kind of scholarly works that Donald J. Trump himself would have written had he been, as hard as it is to imagine it, an academic rather than an “entrepreneur.”

Some of the fucked up lessons that we can learn from this thoughtful Trumpist piece of scholarly analysis that is challenging the “conventional Western narrative”…  

If Sunni populations escaped from rebel areas, it’s because extremists have taken over, not because the Assad regime is dropping barrel bombs on their heads as the United States watches on.

Sunnis are predisposed to becoming extremists because they are Sunnis. Sunnis are also predisposed to being traitors, that is, agents for Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Alawites are not so predisposed to extremism and treason because they are Alawites. That’s why the Assad regime relies on them, not because the Assads are sectarian bastards.

Dogmatic differences between Alawites and Twelver Shia matter, but dogmatic differences between Sunni groups don’t. Wahhabis, Salafis, Sufis, they are all alike. Sunnis are all alike.

The Assad regime built mosques and Qur’an memorization schools for the Sunnis, not as part of a strategy to further divide the Sunni community, no, it did so to placate the Sunnis, because that’s what the Sunnis wanted, since they are all alike.

It’s not the continuous bombing of their communities by the Assad regime and the global indifference to their plight and suffering that ended up fostering extremism among Syria’s Sunni communities, it’s being Sunni. Their Sunnitude is the problem.  

And one can go and on. It’s bullshittery at its finest.

Yet, the piece is bound to be endorsed by a variety of well-established voices responsible for the “conventional Western narrative,” because it’s cool to appear maverick, and even cooler to have some of your own well-established prejudices legitimated.


Beyond the Horizon


Now This


This is not what it quacks like

Pentagon insists zone where it says Syrian planes can't fly is not a 'no-fly zone'. No matter what it looks like, or how it quacks. For indeed, the true Obama Legacy is all about defining the meaning of certain terms, like ransom, no-fly zone, and perhaps even humanity, decency and compassion since none of these notions have so far inspired any meaningful action on Syria.

Meanwhile, and in another sign of double standards: U.S.-Backed Kurds to Assad Forces: ‘Surrender or Die’. In a critical battle, Washington’s most effective allies in Syria turn their attention away from fighting ISIS and toward the militias of Bashar al-Assad. It seems the Kurds have that prerogative, but the Free Syrian Army does not.

Be that as it may, it seems the time has come for the Kurds, represented by the PYD and YPGs, to assert their total control over the areas where they make up the majority of the population. As such, the city of Qamishlo could be next, albeit the battle for control of that city might prove to be more complicated, due to its greater diversity, and stronger regime presence. Still, that battle may no longer be avoidable.

End U.S. battle against Syria's Assad: James Robbins. Or, how to support a genocidaire and retain the moral high ground:

The U.S. did not make the necessary commitment to win in Syria years ago when it had the chance, and it's now giving just enough support to a losing cause to keep the war grinding on. The result is more innocent deaths, more refugees and more misery. It is time for the Obama administration to admit that its policies are doing more harm than good. The president should seek peace the only way he can, by bowing out of the anti-Assad fight.

No. No. No. No. Bowing out of that particular fight, which the U.S. never really embraced, is exactly the recipe for prolonging the war and misery in Syria. Without punitive strikes against the Assad regime, it will never be brought to sign peace deal with rebels. Thanasssi Cambanis does a better job at advising the next president of the United States.

A more robust military campaign in Syria should build on both of the missions already underway: the CIA’s covert sponsorship of armed proxies and the Defense Department’s overt train-and-equip program for rebels.

U.S. military action would have specific goals: to weaken Syrian government forces and punish them in direct response to war crimes, sieges, and other atrocities. The aim of intervention would be to protect civilians and promote the slim possibility of a negotiated settlement to the war. It would not go so far as to help the rebels win — just far enough to maintain the stalemate so that Assad’s regime understands its only choice is to negotiate with the majority of its citizens who oppose his dictatorship.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please stick to the topic(s) being discussed in this particular entry. Hate speech will not be tolerated.