""What support can the world give the nonviolent protestors? Perhaps paradoxically the answer is a buildup of a coercive strategy that threatens the apparatus of repression in Syria with violence used in ultimate instance if the regime doesn’t stop the killing."" So if I understand this correctly, they believe that violence by Arabs is harmful but can be useful by Western powers? Or wait: they mean that only military intervention may save the non-violence of the Syrian revolution? Or wait: they mean that Western violence may be the only way to save the non-violence of the Syrian uprising? OK. Thanks. (thanks "Ibn Rushd")
PS I stopped taking Sadiq Jalal Al-Azm seriously in 1994, when, after an argument over Israel, he blurted to me: they won, ya As`ad. The Jews won. We lost. Khalas.
PS I stopped taking Sadiq Jalal Al-Azm seriously in 1994, when, after an argument over Israel, he blurted to me: they won, ya As`ad. The Jews won. We lost. Khalas.
