Speaking of science fiction and/or myths that should now be regarded as strange urban legends or obscurantist mystifying mumbo-jumbo, Graham has no trouble in featuring essays by people who pretend that Jesus was crucified, ascended into "heaven" (wherever that is), and rose from the dead in a living-breathing human form (which just aint possible) And that they are thus "saved" by believing in this mumbo-jumbo. And that their bodies will be "resurrected" when Jesus comes again. Which body? The one they were when they died or the one when they were in the prime of their life at say 30.

There are of course at least 35,000 different and differing institutional forms of this strange story too

'Bone-chilling' is the word best fit to describe the feeling one is overwhelmed with after reading the article.
The cost of opening one's eyes is High, Very High, the red pill is not for the faint hearted but what the author has highlighted remarkably well is that the cost of keeping them closed is Even Higher and the interest keeps on accumulating!

Well said, Hadi, hear, hear!

What an amazing and compelling article, bringing this issue into clear perspective in spite of its enormous inherent complexity.
Mind you, Junaid had me on his side (of the issue) with his opening quote:

>"I swear to God, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs –we will eat your heart and livers! Takbir! God is Great! Oh my heroes of Baba Amr, you slaughter the Alawites and take their hearts out to eat them!"<

After such a proclamation by a so-called 'revolutionary' I am moved to view Assad as the true 'patriot', and to proclaim 'Death to the Revolutionary'!

I am satisfied that the US must tread very carefully in evaluating the 'Syrian situation', and should seek wise counsel from the Arabic world before contemplating any judgement whatsoever in this matter.
In this respect, Obama appears now to be approaching this situation in a more 'reserved' manner, and this at least is to be applauded.
Undue haste and unfounded conclusions need to be avoided at all cost.

Syria must be saved for the Syrians, but how best to do this is going to take world's best diplomacy.

Question: Can Islam coexist with peaceful co-existence; or is it to become inevitable that it be declared a 'banned' organization or 'movement' - or at least various 'extremist' elements removed from it by concerted action from within, so as to prove and affirm its legitimacy in a tolerant and peace-loving world?
Of course, how do peace-loving Muslims deal with the hate-filled extremist war-mongers in their midst? A substantial dilemma.

An interesting article, although I found the punctuation a little random.
More than "the Matrix" or "through the looking glass" I am reminded of Orwell's 1984; superpowers at perpetual war against each other, constantly changing alliances, redefining enemies...
I sincerely felt for the American soldier holding up a sign:
"I didn't sign up to fight for Al Quaeda".

Neatly put, Grim.

>>I am reminded of Orwell's 1984; superpowers at perpetual war against each other, constantly changing alliances, redefining enemies...<<

What is really interesting (in a detached sort of way) is that it is now possible to track how that situation was allowed to come about - a small detail that Orwell omitted.

At the root of the tragedy in so many instances has been the tendency for major powers to blindly follow the mantra "my enemy's enemy is my friend", which is a fundamentally flawed basis for the selection of "friends".

The greatest danger of this model, however, is that the "enemy" has most often been defined (privately, of course) as "he who impedes my economic progress". Simply because this identifier changes constantly, your determination of who is a friend and who an enemy will also fluctuate across the years.

Over a longer period, this provides the perfect recipe for ultimate geopolitical disaster.

Come to think of it, that is quite possibly what this article was trying to say. Funny, that.

Pericles,

"Maybe it's just me. But what exactly is the author saying here?"

No it's not just you, I agree, the entire article is difficult to interpret, it reminds me of post-modernism at its most incoherent, I think it's a critique of Western imperialism and hypocrisy.
Perhaps it's only for the cognoscenti.