Who else but Daniel Pipes would
take the time and make the effort to build a monument honoring what is meant to
look like Moral Excellence, then stuffs the thing with the vilest constituents
you could find only in the most devilish of constructs? Look at this sentence:
“Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping
whichever side is losing, so as to prolong the conflict.”
And that, my friend, is what you encounter in the latest
article authored by Daniel Pipes and published on April 12, 2013 in National
Review Online under the title: “The Case for Supporting Assad” and the
subtitle: “When enemies of the West are in conflict, it is in our interest to
aid the losing side.” You see no attempt here to disguise the immorality of the
suggestion because the author has no idea how immoral it is.
Those of us who saw early on that
the principle of “Responsibility to Protect” was but a gimmick to provide Israel with the cover to expand its policy of
cultural and physical genocide against the people of Palestine , now have the proof that what we
saw was real. We could see from the start that the pretense to practice moral
excellence was nothing more than a cheap trick meant to give Israel's advocates
the legal cover and moral justification to incite the “Western” powers to act
in a demonic fashion yet appear saintly doing it.
And that whole exercise was meant
to do then what it means to do now: divert the attention from Israel 's war on
the Palestinian people who remain under its occupation after three generations.
The diversion would be achieved by creating the impression that those who “kill
their own people” are more evil than those who kill people other than their
own. To this end, the team that crafted the Responsibility to Protect has also
worked to facilitate the meddling in the affairs of other nations by the
so-called Western powers.
The aim here would be to create
discord among the diverse groups populating those other nations then use the
ensuing conflict as excuse to intervene militarily under the pretense of
protecting the population from its own government. And the charade would go on
while the government of Israel ,
its army and its settlers are given free rein to butcher the Palestinians who –
as it happens – are not classified as their own people, thus making it
acceptable to butcher them. And Daniel Pipes shows us how the demonic charade
is made to work.
When you read his article, you see more than the evil that
is inherent to the policy he describes; you get to see how devilish are the
sentiments that motivate him. Look at this introductory paragraph as he
discusses the civil war in Syria :
“Analysts agree that a rebel
breakthrough and an Islamist victory [are] increasingly likely. In response, I
am changing my recommendation from neutrality to … Western governments should
support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad … so as to prolong the
conflict.” An evil sentiment motivating him to cheer for the maintenance of the
horror.
What else should we expect from a
piece written by Daniel Pipes? Well, this being an easy question, there is an
easy answer for it: You expect him to mutilate history and use the parts to
stitch together a new body of evidence that will support his current argument,
however temporary it may prove to be. And that's exactly what he does in the
article by first asserting that “This policy has precedent.”
He then goes on to cite an example
from World War II, ascribing to Franklin D. Roosevelt motivations that were
never mentioned previously because they never existed. Pipes also cites an
example taken from the Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 without mentioning Presidents
Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. What he does, instead, is quote himself who had
taken a position in 1987 comparable to what he now advocates. He did so in an
article he published at the time. As can be seen, the man is a recidivist who
is not ready to repent.
But what is it that motivates him
to come out and advocate support for Assad at this time? Good question, and
here is his logic as he describes it himself: “Yes, Assad’s survival benefits Tehran , the region’s most
dangerous regime. But a rebel victory would hugely boost the increasingly rogue
Turkish government … Continued fighting does less damage to Western interests than
letting the Islamists take power … Better that neither side wins.” Turkey , as you
can see, is the latest enemy of the day; it is the object that stirs the acid
in his belly; it is where he aims the fire of his hatred.
To shed light on that point, it must be noted that Turkey and Israel were once bosom buddies who
had a falling out for a while but then started talking again, and may
eventually kiss and make up. But this prospect alone does not seem to satisfy
Daniel Pipes who may harbor a secret hate for the idea that Turkey chose to be
bosom buddies with a garden full of Middle Eastern nations than remain in the
sole embrace of Israel, the solitary skunk in that garden.
This is saying a great deal already, but is there something
else that Daniel Pipes would do besides mutilating history? Yes, there is. He
would concoct a made-to-order opinion to posit that what America is
doing will not work. He would then offer an alternative that will support his
goal; the prolongation of the fight in the ongoing dispute. Here is how he put
it: “Nice idea, but manipulating the rebel forces via remote control has little
chance of success ... Better to aspire to the feasible: propping up the side in
retreat.”
And so you exclaim: But this is
horrible! Does he not realize how this will look in the eyes of the world? The
answer is yes, he does but relax because you need not worry about a thing. It
is that after the mutilation of history and the concoction of fake opinions,
there comes the pretense of adhering to high morals. This is how he put it: “Westerners
must be true to their morals ... Western governments should … pressur[e] the
rebels’ suppliers and the Syrian government’s supporters … That would fulfill
the responsibility to protect.”
See how easy it is? All you have to do is pressure someone
to do one thing or another; or pressure them to refrain from doing one thing or
another. Whether or not they will listen is another matter, however, but the
important thing is that you do the talking thus appear to have fulfilled the
famed “responsibility to protect.” Now you're home free.
Prey tell what comes after that if indeed something else
comes after that? Yes, something else comes after that, and it is the promise.
After the mutilation of history, the concoction of fake opinions and the
pretense to adhere to high morals – must come the promise. In fact, the whole
exercise would not be Jewish if not for the promise – be it real or be it fake.
Here is the promise in his own words: “On the happy day when
Assad and Tehran have fought the rebels and Ankara to mutual exhaustion, Western support then can go
to elements in Syria ,
helping them offer a ... better future.” What more do you want? What more would
anyone want?
See why these people think of themselves as being the chosen
children of God? They don't just make miracles; they are the miracle.