I just watched the 5 pm news hour on CNN anchored by Wolf Blitzer, and the editors had clearly decided that the lead was that Russian bombing in south Aleppo risks creating a new wave of refugees. They also stuck to the cover story that the Russians are only attacking the “moderate rebels.”
Yet another of the author's hard to decipher articles about a hard to decipher region of the world.
Yes you simply had to be first just to say this pearl of opinion but not wisdom so that everyone who follows has to deal with its off-putting tone. You are such an egoist when you do something like this. It has no value as a comment. You have a rightwing ego in a left wing site.
But the important thing for you is as always to be first to post something even when you actually have nothing useful to say.
Several others have expressed difficulty with the author's writings in the past. I read through the article about five times before penning my post. It is confusing that the narrative of the Syrian regime dropping barrel bombs would not be pursued by CNN, for instance--given the implied messaging objectives.
exactly who's interests are being served by this garbage reporting?
Such a criticism is fair in an of itself but by being first to post in this case it sets a tone which adversely affects others. If you took the time and made a little effort to cite an example of where you found his writing needed clarification then your comment would be justified wherever it was placed. However by simply stating such an ambiguous and broad reaching condemnation as the first post, it unduly affects the reader's perceptions. I would think that if you were already well versed on the situation then the ''hard to decipher region' would be easier to decipher ...!
Would it not?
What is garbage about it? Another person who just says a generalized opinion but is too lazy to cite an example of why they think that way.
Point taken. Thanks for being civil.
We fight against,fill in the blank, because it is profitable. Invest in US savings bombs..
Would someone please explain what is the difference between a moderate rebel and a radical rebel? Aren't they both Muslims that believe in Sharia law?
It's not clear to me whether the 'garbage reporting' you mention is referring to Juan Cole or to the Wolf Blitzer, mainstream media's that Mr. Cole was slamming.
In this case they are, but in the whole muslim world, many do not have sharia. Those are the ones who are the moderates. Only about a 1/4 of the muslim countries practice sharia in their government. Our ally, the Saudis, practice the most radical version of Islam, Wahhabism, and export it to al quada and ISIS. And the Saudis make the top 5 most repressive regimes in the world. Indonesia is the opposite, no sharia law in it's government (though there is one province that is autonomous that does.). Indonesia is also the most populous muslim country.
In reading Will's comment, I also asked the same question, and I presume the reference is to Wolf Blitzer's media. It's not clear, and perhaps CD will replace it as the frontpage comment.
Juan Cole is an exceptional reporter on culture and politics of the Middle East. When I see his byline, I read the article for insight into events there.
Grammatically, "whose" should replace "who's" in Will's question.
Appreciate the clarification.