• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Mother of All Debates
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    scruzie on The Mother of All Debates
    Ga6thDem on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    Ga6thDem on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on The Mother of All Debates
    riverdaughter on Raisins, Regret and Inderol 
    Em on Raisins, Regret and Inderol 
    JMS on To Autumn
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    September 2013
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    2930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Trump/Clinton Debate Open Thread
      I used to get paid to watch these things. I don’t any more.  So… I’m going to go read a nice novel in a coffee shop.  Please feel free to talk about the debate in comments.  I will, actually, be curious to hear what people have to say, just not willing to sit thru so […]
  • Top Posts

When the going gets tough, the PR manipulators stir up the Christians

It’s all over the nytimes front page. A *Christian* village in Syria was attacked. Three *Christian* women are dead, as if that makes it more outrageous. They must be desperate if they’re willing to get the American Christian sector all in a tizzy.

Moslem children dead for two years? Not a peep. But once they worship the right god, well, then they’re worth saving.

Disgusting.

And another thing, how are chemical weapons different from drones? I mean aside from the elemental analysis of the lethal dose? Don’t both delivery devices allow the perpertrators to stand back and watch without any personal risk? If you’re going to hold the chemical weapon lobber accountable, why not the droner?

Or is it ok when we do things that avoid personal sacrifice, cause grievous death and injury, and are not held accountable because we are a so-called *Christian* nation?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a “knit your own sandals”, Chomsky fellating pacifist. I just want consistency and some sense of justice. This doesn’t cut it for me.

I smell money.

19 Responses

  1. Which PR manipulators are trying to stir up the Christians with this article? Since this article is simply pointing out something the al Quaeda rebels have done, it certainly wouldn’t be publicised by the Obama team’s “bomb Syria” PR manipulators.

    The Syrian Christians are not like Jehovah’s Witnesses nor are they militant conversionists or missionaries so far as I know. If the so-called “rebels” win, they will set up an al Qaeda government in Syria and attempt to kill or expel ( a milion or more Alawites and a million or more Christians).

    I see Sic Semper Tyrannis is still on your links. And it is still a very good blog. Colonel Lang and his commenters have been writing quite a bit about Syria lately, including strong and growing evidence that the latest gas attack was a Saudi Arabia assisted rebel false flag attack to get America involved in defense of Obama’s red-line credibility. Here is a sample of that Colonel Lang has been posting on
    Sic Semper Tyrannis.
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/09/httpwwwcnncom20130908worldmeastsyria-civil-war.html

    • To me, it’s the equivalent of telling people that saddam Hussein has the capability of bombing us in 45 minutes. It’s incendiary. It may also be true but after two years of killing almost everyone else on their shit lists, Christians should consider themselves lucky that they haven’t been major targets.
      Either EVERYONE is important in Syria or NO ONE is important in Syria. You can’t just turn a blind eye to atrocities against Moslem sects and destruction of mosques and then get bent out of shape over a church and some Christians. It’s not right morally.

      • But my question remains unanswered. Since we are backing the rebels who plan to exterminate a million or more Christians and Alawites if they come to power, who would be the people trying to gin up some PR on behalf of the Christians when our policy is to overthrow the Assad government which protects from the rebels who intend kill them all? It certainly wouldn’t be the same people who are doing PR for attacking Syria to topple Assad and bring the al Qaeda militias to power. So who would it be? This little town was attacked BY rebels. And Obama is BACKing the rebels. So it certainly wouldn’t be the Obama team doing PR on behalf of this Christian town.
        So who would it be?

        • I think you’ve hit the nail on the head in a backwards way. Why are we supporting rebels who are extremists against an extremist? It sounds like the narrative is getting mixed up, which I’m sure is intentional. They’ve got their bases covered. They can bomb the crap out of Assad’s forces for using chemical weapons or they can bomb the crap out of the Islamic extremists. Either way, bombs will be dropped. What’s not to like? There’s something here for everyone.

  2. The Christians in the ME are being slaughtered daily…as are, I’m sure, various muslim sects. I’m angry and how much this is under reported, particularly in northern Africa.

    Yes, someone finally reporting that 3 christian women died will possibly get some attention. Those of us who have already been paying attention know that this is nothing compared to what has been going on for years.

  3. There is a Syria area-expert who has a blog devoted to Syria. He has a less emotional, more analytical, more information-dense post about this event.
    http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/jabhat-al-nusra-and-other-islamists-briefly-capture-historic-christian-town-of-maloula/

  4. The best way to save lives in Syria would be to stop the war as fast as possible. Can the Putin “gas roundup” plan achieve that? Would it lead to the settle-all-differences negotiation which would lead to ending the war? It is worth trying and hoping for.
    If that doesn’t work, what is second best? Helping one side crush and destroy the other side so completely that the other side unconditionally surrenders. Since the government side is far better armed and better manned than the rebel side, further arming and training the rebel side would only drag the war on for years. But stopping all support to the rebel side and supporting the government side to the max would allow the Assad-Baath government to win the war faster and then stop shelling the towns and villages. One who is really concerned with saving the most lives going forward will help Assad achieve a swift and crushing victory so that the fighting will then stop.
    Colonel Lang wrote a post about some of the Syrian soldier and officer defectors to the rebel side becoming so disturbed at the emerging Saudi-Turkey-Quatar backed Islamist/al Qaeda terrorist groups on the rebel side that they are undefecting back to the government side. Colonel Lang felt the ideal outcome would be where all the disillusioned Free Syrian Army personel who want to come back come back, and then become part of a broader government effort to hunt down and kill every single jihadist in Syria, most especially all the foreigh ones . . . Libyans, Chechens, Saudis, Iraquis, etc. etc. etc.
    And meanwhile we could also increase support for Syrian refugee relief until the war is stopped either by diplomacy or by crushing defeat of one side (hopefully the rebels), and then the refugees can go back.

  5. I don’t really look for consistency in foreign policy because the world is too complex for one-size-fits-all. What I do want is rational analysis of each situation on its merits. So driving Iraq out of Kuwait-yes. Intervening in Yugoslavia-yes. Going into Afghanistan was a rational response to 9/11, but Bush bungled it by focusing on Iraq, and staying in Afghanistan for over a decade is another matter. And of course, going into Iraq in 2003 was nuts (and I said so at the time, so that isn’t hindsight). As for Syria, there are too many possible unintended consequences so I oppose intervention. In any case, the sort of symbolic strike Obama has outlined isn’t likely to accomplish much of anything.

    I’ll add the Syrian government has a history of slaughtering its people. It is an evil regime, and if I could press a button and make it go away, I’d press it. But the same was true of Saddam in Iraq. Unfortunately, no such button exists, and as in Iraq, there is a real possibility of making a bad situation worse. Not worth the risk.

    • Personally, I would hesitate before not pressing a button to make the US and its “might makes right, gun-law is the best law, capitalism is freedom” policies go away. We in the West are not automatically the good guys, really we are not. Then I wouldn’t press it because, however much I might be patronised and sneered at, I am a pacifist. Wars kill people, increasingly (and overwhelmingly) people who have not put themselves in harm’s way on purpose, but people who are just in the way. And the West won’t mourn these deaths, unless it suits them. They might even turn feminist or gay-lib – to justify one of their nasty resource/box in Russia/Iran/beat China-to-the- spoils wars. Weeping crocodile tears over women and children covers all sorts of crimes. Just don’t expect them to care about the rights of women and children and gays when the extremists they have allied themselves to take power and start repressing them. General Sisi – like Pinochet and his murderous 9/11 coup – is the kind of “democrat” they love, but they’ll put up with Saudi funded terrorists if they have to. And the dead, of any colour, creed or country, will be a price worth paying, even if they were never given a democratic say in the matter.

  6. If you know of other sources to get the information I’ve gotten from Chomsky please let me know. If the perspective I’ve gotten from reading him doesn’t belong in public discussions…

    • Hyperbole, of course. I have nothing against Chomsky personally. He’s just a different kind of extremist. But so many people on the left worship him for his pacifism and I really don’t think pacifism is always the answer, no matter how much we desire it. At a certain point, it becomes dogma on the left and less dogmatic lefties start to get impatient with that.

      • There is nothing “extreme” about looking at your society honestly and seeing what stinks about it and trying to make it better by showing people what is really going on when they march to the voting booths and back people like Obama. I’d call it intellectual integrity of a rare and priceless kind. No blinkers, just plain, impartial sight. Now if he were waving a gun around and ready to use it, then you could call him an extremist. Instead he does the civilised, rational thing and sets out his views and discusses them, with those who agree with them and with those who don’t alike. Though when faced by rabid Americanistas who merely abuse him personally, he has the right to ignore them, I think.

        • I was referring specifically to his unconditional pacifism, which, IMHO, is stupid. Peace is a goal and in general, I’m for it. But some of Chomsky’s statements *are* extreme.
          YMMV but you should know that if lefties continue to insist on turning the other cheek in every circumstance no matter what the provocation, they’re going to continue to lose elections and nothing else they think is important will be taken seriously. That’s because pacifism in every case is an extreme position.

  7. Obama got a note along with the bucks in the last satchel letting him know Murder Inc’s Stock was nearing the end of its shelf life and if he didn’t take it off their hands it would have to be scrapped at a huge loss.

    Same reason you’ll never see pot legalized on the Federal level, too much $$$ going from cartels to legislators pockets.

  8. My reading of the article is a bit different. It presents Assad as being what stands between the Syrian Christians and Moslem extremists. Therefore, supporting the rebels and/or opposing Assad is potentially endangering the Christian minority in Syria. Therefore, Republicans in the House (and this is squarely aimed at them) should continue to oppose Obama and his war against Assad and Boehner better take note.

    Seeing that the religious right already has Obama painted as a Moslem extremist (even though he’s a Christian moderate/conservative/wimp against the right and money), this is an interesting strategy. It effectively splits Republicans into either religious zealots or full scale backers of the military and particularly the military industrial complex. Since way more of the backers in a primary are religious nuts (and gun nuts) this makes sense in a political way.

  9. Off topic: My SO just got his “if you like your plan, you CAN’T keep it” letter from his individual insurance company (Washington Regence). If only my SO was a rabble rouser. He could call Sean at Healthcare.gov and give him some truth. Hopefully some people with more trouble-making skills and desires will come forward.

    I am not signed up at Corrente, so I’m posting this here…..

  10. I am so glad to see you are writing again. A while back, you seem to have stopped.

    You ask precisely the right question: How are chemical weapons worse than drones? Arguably, drones cause more terror, because people in Yemen live with the threat of instant death from above on a 24/7 basis. You can imagine how that situation might affect someone psychologically.

    Pretty soon, I’m going to post a response to the Human Rights Watch report which everyone is citing — the report that allegedly proves Assad’s culpability. I suggest you read it. Someone with your scientific eye should be able to spot the weaknesses pretty rapidly.

    Basically, the HRW argument comes down to this thought experiment:

    Suppose Bob Blowfish has been shot, and that the cops think that he was shot with a Colt 45. Suppose that I stand to benefit from Bob’s death. Suppose, too, that I am on record as saying that I want to get hold of a Colt 45, and that I have consulted experts who have told me how to use a Colt 45. Suppose, finally, that I am known to have robbed a gun store that sells Colt 45s.

    Along comes Human Rights Watch. They issue a report saying: “We have no video of Joseph Cannon using a Colt 45. Therefore, he cannot have done this crime. We do have video proving that Riverdaughter keeps a Colt 45 in her drawer. Therefore, she must have shot Bob Blowfish, even though she has no motive.”

    Honest to god, that’s what HRW’s argument comes to. Read it for yourself — and then read my response.

    • The blog Sic Semper Tyrannis by Pat Lang has quite a few blogposts and comments lately exploring the likely possibility that various rebels used the poison gas at various times.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: