« WPS: Blogging the New Arab Public | Main | The anti-AQ alliance taking shape? »

April 10, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c391553ef00d83468d1d869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bowden and Zarqawi: what about Jordan?:

Comments

Chuck

If you haven't considered doing so already, write a letter to the editor. IIRC, Bowden has been pretty good about responding to substantive questions in such situations in past Atlantic articles of his. Responses are typically printed in issues about two months out from the date of original publication.

aardvark

A good idea. I've always seen Bowden as a good reporter and straight shooter, even when we disagree, so I'm genuinely curious about this.

Hemlock for Gadflies

It could have been a matter of letting the Jordanians claim credit for it, to boost the king's reputation (perhaps even within Iraq) and to make the "global war on terror" look slightly less American.

Kurzleg

To paraphrase "Resevoir Dogs", either the Jordanians brought about Zarquawi's capture/killing. Or they didn't. Or Task Force 145 brought about Zarquawi's capture/killing. Or they didn't.

anonymous

So what’s the deal with Mr. Sulieman visit to Israel, the Syrian foreign ministry has denied any connection with him in the timely way after he completed his visit. And his visit took very small space in Syrian media. In Syria-news the visit post took small section for short time and their comment section only couples of comments were printed, which is weird, where some of them call him a traitor and ask for his head. The visit in my view is one of the main events in the history of the conflict, and even the commentators on Syria comments pass it very lightly. It is on all levels, diplomacy, psychologically and mentally is a gigantic step at least from the Syrian side which should be emphasized to promote a change in course of conflict. Commentators, observers should use this visit to promote peace agenda and even opposition figures should used it to promote negotiations principals with enemy and dissents as a new tools to force an alternate way to solve conflict. In Syria, since 1948, any association with a Jew has been considered treason and it is part of the psychos of the government. Regime was and still using the no contact tool as one of their legitimacy for governing and protecting the country. It seems that time has change. Question to Joshua: How can the opposition use this visit to their advantage?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad
Analytics