The following is my open response to Stephen Zunes' Facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/stephen.zunes/posts/1615165698512094The "reputable human rights groups" often spread wild misinformation about both the Syrian government and/or the US to the point of not deserving to be termed credible. They regurgitate many unsubstantiated accusations as if they are proven facts simply because one side or the other leveled them. Do you ever call them out for that? I do, as I'm doing right here. If you were to do that, you'd take away your own argument. Reputable doesn't equal credible.
James Clapper has a great reputation with some. The neocons who lied the US into the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Baathist Iraq are still lauded by many. Even George W. Bush has been cited by many Hillary Clinton supporters because of his anti-Trump statements.
You wrote "... the roots of the conflict lie with the corrupt repressive Baathist government." History did not start with the Baathists. The Baathists were a reaction. Many people believe that were there not an iron hand at the top, society would disintegrate into exactly what has happened. Assad made that very point when he quite correctly said during the "peaceful" protests that al Qaeda is waiting in the wings to take over and will be vastly worse than the then current system (which was democratizing, which Assad wants to continue). The counterargument is that things could become better and more peaceful. However, under what system (Assad's legitimate question), US neoliberal economics forced upon them via sanctions, etc.? That's been the pattern where the US hasn't simply left a totally failed state, such as with Libya.
Look at the stated ends of the YPG. Their egalitarian-leaning liberty is seen as chains by US libertarians/laissez-faire capitalists, so-called individualists.
As for your "bloggers" point, you're missing the point or avoiding it. They represent a counter to the claims leveled by typically mainstream US corporate media. It's not as if interviewing the "sources" of the info spewed by that media (often unnamed US government officials) would alter the counterclaims. Given the MSM v. the "bloggers," we get both sides of the story. That's the point. The MSM would have it otherwise: silence the "bloggers."
It sounds as if you're claiming that the MSM plus people who disbelieve the "bloggers" are the only people who should have a voice or be listened to. If so, I couldn't disagree more.
Lastly, your statement that they "aren't allowed to interview any other Syrians without government minders present" is rather sweeping. I've seen plenty of reporting done by people who aren't led, or accompanied, by the government. For security reasons, others don't want to risk floating about alone.
True intellectualism is based upon logic. I suggest you up your game, Steven.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)