The disruption of the Lehigh University conference on Syria

I have a few comments on Marc's account:  "A group of Syrian-Americans arrived at an academic conference at Lehigh University last week in Bashar al-Assad T-shirts and draped in Syrian flags adorned with Assad's face. They repeatedly heckled and interrupted speakers, and one told an opposition figure that he deserved a bullet in the head. When a speaker showed a slide picturing dead Syrian children, they burst into loud applause. When another speaker cynically predicted that Bashar would win a 2014 presidential vote, they cheered. In the final session, they aggressively interrupted and denounced a Lebanese journalist, with one ultimately throwing his shoe at the stage. The panel degenerated into a screaming match, until police arrived to clear the room. " 1) It should be noted that the conference itself over a day-period) was a typical conference on Syria on a US college campus: strictly one-sided.  Only one side (that which is congruent with US and Saudi foreign policies are allowed in.  2) While Marc identified the protesters (rightly) as pro-Bashshar thugs, he failed to mention that "the Lebanese journalist" in question is the bureau chief of the news station of King Fahd's brother-in-law, and that the station is notorious for sectarian thuggery on the airwaves.  That is not a minor point, without accepting the behavior of the pro-Bashshar protesters and their disruptions. 3) Syrian opposition supporters have disrupted several panels and conferences on Syria, in the US and Europe where a person dared to disagree with them. 4) Let us face: both sides are thuggish vulgarians: those who are pro-Bashshar and those who are pro-Syrian exile groups.  There is no one side that holds moral superiority over the other.  5) It should be mentioned that the point of view sympathetic to the Syrian regime and to Bashsar (a point of view that even Anne Barnard of the New York Times now concedes holds sway among many Syrians who are in Syria) is not permitted in the US.  Those views are not tolerated, and the frustrations of those thuggish disrupters (which are grotesque) should be placed in that context.  6) There were rallies for the opposition in which opponents of the opposition have been bullied, threatened, and even attacked: this even took place as far back as Australia.  Marc writes as if this is the only disruption in a civil debate about Syria ever.  7) By talking about sectarianism (and he concedes albeit gingerly in the article that Saudi Arabia is primarily responsible) how could he miss talking about the role of the Syrian exile opposition (represented in this very conference) has been the primarily vehicle of sectarian mobilization, agitation, and instigation in this conflict? This is not a footnote to the story.   8) Many Syrians in the US are very angry because the US (media, government, and academia) only recognizes one points of view for Syrians: that of the exile opposition.  Many of those Syrians are angry that their views are not tolerated in the US.  The only reason why those Syrians were so vocal in their protest--I am told--is because they come from a Christian Syrian community in the state, and they feel far more confident in expressing their views in favor of Bashshar than many non-Christian Syrians in the US who may be sympathetic to Bashshar. But that is another point altogether.