1) “he is against western intervention whatever the circumstances, and that can never change.”

Really? Where have I ever said these words? “Whatever the circumstances” eh? Hmm. Thanks for putting words in my mouth in the very first sentence of the very first paragraph. I’ve written countless words on the Middle East and war-and-peace, why not use those rather than invent views for me to then conveniently shoot down?

2) “So no matter how long he spends on looking at the operational difficulties a coalition of willing nations would have, it’s all for nothing, since his first principles override reason.”

Really? Why? Why is it wrong to say that 1) it isn’t our job to topple Assad – it just isn’t, not just on legal grounds, but logistical/pragmatic grounds too – but that 2) if there was something militarily we could do to prevent massacres/genocide without increasing the overall bloodshed or making things much worse for the country and the region in the medium-to-long-term, it’s worth considering. Are those two things so irreconcilable or contradictory? I don’t happen to think so.

3) Yes I am “instinctively opposed to western military interventions in the Middle East”. What’s wrong with that? Am proud to say it. It’s no smoking gun. Given our track record in the region, most obviously Iraq, why wouldn’t I be? Is it better to be instinctively pro-war, like you? Anyone who cares about human rights and avoiding death should be worried about western interventions which tend to be human-rights disasters and increase death tolls – especially in the Middle East. What’s wrong with “instinctively” preferring negotiations and nonviolent, diplomatic alternatives to war and conflict in the world’s most tense region? I guess you’d have a go at MLK too. Oh, and it doesn’t mean “instinct” is “all I have”. Don’t put words in my mouth.

4) You claim to “listen to the people in Syria”. Really? Then what do you say to Haytham al-Manna, lead spokesman of the anti-intervention National Coordinating Committee (NCC), who I quote in my NS column? And why is it in this whole blogpost you don’t (can’t?) actually deal with the points I make in my column, but would rather deal with a strawman version of me and my arguments?

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2012/02/syria-assad-intervention

5) “On the Middle East, I honestly fail to see why he is listened to at all by anyone other than those on the fringes.”

This is my favourite line. It’s basically: “Stop listening to Mehdi Hasan! Listen to me instead!” Awww, poor you. Are you feeling unloved? Do you wish more people would listen to you? One day, you’ll be lifted off the fringes. I promise. Just not yet.

The FSA then went on to shoot the captured Shabiha, but at least that’s a quick death.

Hint. There is a reason books are printed in BLACK and white.

Wow! Even for a historical revisionist I bet you have to rip out whole passages out of the 1990′s history books to make that inaccurate statement fit your rather blinkered world view.

Sorry, missed this.

There are no easy answers, clearly. I\m planning a part 2 to this in which to examine precisely the ‘what we do’ question you raise, but in the end it’s not possible to recreate artificially the conditions under which peaceful, “full” states formed – we only have one human history. I suspect the best answer we have is to address the best way forward on a case by case basis, but of course any “addressing” is beset by the question of who does the addressing and how a new form of colonialism is avoided.

More later.