Annan backs UN demand for G.B. closure

Ziggurat said:
No, I don't, because that propaganda doesn't actually square with the facts. The protests started months after the cartoons were published. Hell, they were even published IN EGYPT well before the protests started. And it's no coincidence that the embassy burnings happened in Syria (where nobody has a protest without government approval) and Lebanon (where Syrian proxies still exert enormous influence). Syria is under incredible pressure because of the Hariri assasination investigation, and this is a nice pressure release valve. But it's completely staged. Here's Amir Taheri (an Iranian expat) with more on that:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19313
Click to expand...
C'mon. Just look at this article's characterization of Al Jazeera, hardly impartial. Please tell me you're not that naive and that you can distinguish fact from opinion.

The emissaries found a more sympathetic audience in Qatar — where the satellite-TV channel Al Jazeera (owned by the emir) specializes in inciting Muslims against the West and democracy in general.
Click to expand...
 
FreeChile said:
C'mon. Just look at this article's characterization of Al Jazeera, hardly impartial. Please tell me you're not that naive and that you can distinguish fact from opinion.
Click to expand...

This statement doesn't amount to much at all if that the characterization of Al Jazeera is correct. Can you present an argument that it's actually wrong, or do you want to take that as a given?

More generally, though, I've found Taheri to be extremely knowlegeable about the middle east. His columns are quite frequently informative, and his arguments often insightful. Don't like his characterization of Al Jazeera? Fine, but I bet he watches a lot more than either of us, and he doesn't need to rely on someone else for translations either, as so many western commentators do. In the absence of a counterargument to his characterization, I'm actually quite willing to accept his word.

And the heart of his argument isn't even about Al Jazeera, but about the role of political groups, and the Syrian regime in particular, of stoking this fire, and how the riots represent the result of those efforts rather than any spontaneous muslim rage. And details such as the delay between publication and response, the fake "cartoons" added to the list, the burning of embassies in Syria and Lebanon, point pretty convincingly towards that conclusion. If you've got a better way to explain those facts based on
"the buildup of public discontent for what they perceive to be attacks on Muslims," then by all means, present the argument.
 
FreeChile said:
No.
Click to expand...
Huh?

There is currently legal presedent. This is why I say that the president is a criminal--someone who has broken the law.
Click to expand...
Well you are certainly entitled to an opinion. But then FDR, and many if not most other presidents are likely criminals. No, I don't justify Bush's behavior and I won't minimize it if it truly is grievous. If he is a criminal and a case can be made then impeach him. I have no problem with that.

Here's the case where the President was found guilty by the Supreme Court.

Rasul v. Bush
Click to expand...
Where is the text where they declare Bush guilty? I don't honestly think that is the way SCOTUS works but I await your enlightenment. And this has what exactly to do with my post?

Here's a related thread where we discuss the issue of Guantanamo.

Guantanamo Bay inmates 'tortured', says UN
Click to expand...
Oh, wow, thank you for that. This is better than a root canal. Not better than watching ice melt but hey, you can't have everything.

Good luck in that whole impeachment thing.

RandFan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom