Consider this cry: The war is over; let's wail and weep.
Does this sound right to you? Of course not. It would take someone that sank
deep into the pit of inhumanity to be like that. But the reality is that some
people do express this sentiment. They openly mourn what they see as the end of
the war in Syria .
Imagine the wars that happened during the Twentieth Century;
from the First World War to the First Iraq War. Did it ever happen that someone
expressed sorrow because the war ended? No, there is not one recorded instance
to this effect in the history books or any book. So then, why is it happening
now?
It is happening now because those who were dying were Arabs;
and those who mourn the end of the civil war are Jews. They cheered at the
start of the war five years ago, proclaiming their delight at seeing the Arabs
kill each other; and they are sorry now to see the war come to an end.
One group expressing their sorrow is the editors of National
Review Online (NRO). They are the same editors who ran articles by contributors
cheering the start of the civil war. This time, the editors have decided to
express their own sorrow at seeing the war come to an end. They did so in a
piece that came under the title: “Obama's Disastrous Syria Policy.” It was
published on December 15, 2016 in their online rag.
Of the many things that will shock a sane reader when going
over the editorial, none is more shocking than the style of writing that was
adopted. It is unique to this event because it was never used previously in any
similar event. It has become common, however, among the Jewish writers and
their non-Jewish disciples who tackle this subject at this time.
The most bizarre aspect of the style is that the editors
blame the war on those who won it. That's because their side – which they call
moderate rebels – lost the war to a side that's made of everyone they hate.
That would be Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria; Vladimir Putin, President of
Russia, and the Iranian Shia fighters.
The editors also blame the loss of the war on their own
President, Barack Obama. In fact, this is how they start the discussion: “The
fall of Aleppo demonstrates the cost of American
inaction … the Obama administration yielded the military and strategic
initiative to America 's
enemies.” Here you have characters that got together with their contributors in
celebration of the start of the civil war, now lamenting that Obama did not
seize the opportunity to get involved before “America 's enemies” had the chance
to do so.
What does that mean? Are they saying there are spoils of the
war that America could have
gotten, but let Russia and Iran get them
instead? Most likely not. The fact is that Syria has no natural resources of
any kind and they know it. What then, are the NRO editors talking about? Well,
they lament the success of the enemies because “The results are now plain to
see. The death toll in Syria
approaches a half-million men, women and children”.
Okay. But what does that mean? Are they suggesting that America could
have conducted a more surgical sort of war – killing enemies that mingled with
civilians, using them as human shield – without killing the civilians?
Apparently not, because the editors do not even tackle this subject at all.
Instead, they return to their favorite whipping boy and use him like a punching
bag once more.
Here is how they put it: “There was never an easy answer to
the Syrian conflict, but it's indisputably clear that Obama made a series of
mistakes. He failed to aggressively support potential allies early in the year”.
This is known as the “if only” argument. You use it when you
discover that your presentation is going nowhere, and so you assert that the
result would have been different had something been done long ago that someone
neglected to do. Since the assertion cannot be verified, no one will prove you
wrong and you win the argument.
Instead of ending the discussion here, they did the very
Jewish thing of expressing pessimism at the future, and used that argument to
unleash a savage attack on everyone: America 's
Obama , Russia 's
Putin , Syria