On America’s pursuit of global war and selling Syria to sectarian exclusionism
A car bomb concealed in aid van targeted families stranded at a transit point during a planned evacuation.
The blast hit the Rashidin area on the outskirts of Aleppo, where dozens of buses carrying mostly Shia Muslim families were waiting to enter the city. An estimated 70 innocent lives were lost in the vicious attack.
On that heinous crime, the Western complex has remained more or less quiet … outrage nowadays has become a disposable commodity played out to the tune of the public’s indifference.
All hail the United States of America for allowing the bad, the ugly and the worst to gain yet another lease on life on account regime change still picks its curiosity. I have said it before, and I feel I must say it again, regardless of what anyone may think of President Assad, regardless of what anyone may wish even for Syria’s future, we need to consider the rule of law and admit that such decisions lie not within our hands.
All that matters, all that ever mattered, is that political present and future Syrians want to see manifest within the borders of their homeland.
Any argument that will, therefore, posit “change” against Syria’s sovereignty sits a crime against not only international law but the very definition of democracy.
More importantly still, we cannot, and I mean we absolutely cannot, wave the flag of exceptionalism in the name of an elusive greater good when such action requires innocent blood is spilled, and people are denied those very rights we claim to want to offer them.
For all those parties still under the far-fetched and downright phantasmagorical impression that Syria would be better off without its current administration, allow me to point out that if not for President Assad Syria - and most likely the entire Levant region would have fallen to ISIS. Which part of that reality sounds like a good idea to you?
And no, I flat out refuse, reject and altogether refute the idiotic theory some Western neocon mouthpieces have floated around - one hint: it rhymes with New York Times, that the US should allow for ISIS militants to bleed out Syria to better disappear President Assad’s government.
US should use ISIS as a proxy - New plan for Syria published in New York Times (Op-Edge) https://t.co/nDjsZ8bVEc— RT (@RT_com) April 15, 2017
Now, factor in the fact that Syria has been earmarked by a grand terror takeover and one mighty religious cleansing and you may want to rethink your outrage away from Damascus and back onto those parties promoting that agenda terror hell-hounds have carried since they first came out of their pitiful ditch.
Syria is bleeding again, and surprise, surprise, no grand cries of outrage came to disturb Western capitals’ slumber this Easter weekend. Syria is bleeding, children are lying face down on the ground, and the world still argues pictures, allegations, and military interventionism against the one army that has managed to keep the darkness at bay.
Yes, darkness … how else would you want to define the Black Flag Army but under those adjectives that best describe evil?
Who has spoken for Foua and Kefraya evacuees? For those poor souls, no rally was organized, and no tears were shed on the floor of the United Nations … What about those “innocent babies” Mr. Trump?
Here we are again staring in the face of absolute hypocrisy, dumbfounded by the Western capitals’ propensity to manipulate and twist every fact, and every pain so that their rhetoric could be reinforced - to hell with facts, the rule of law and due process.
Let me play now a little game of what-ifs … because to be perfectly honest with you it is long overdue. I am personally sick and tired of tiptoeing around the issue of religious genocide and pretend that America is not fanning such agenda so that it could justify military interventionism ad vitam eternam across the Greater Middle Eastern region.
As they say: if the shoe fits. In this particular case it is not so much the shoe but the narrative that does.
Sectarian much ladies and gentlemen of the West?
Whatever do I mean? To put it kindly I believe the West and its well-to-do moral liberalism is playing right into the hands of Wahhabist-exclusionists by framing the Greater Middle East as a sectarian flashpoint.
No? What about those sickening sectarian adjectives that Western media feel compelled to use, and abuse so that their readers would imprint on the idea that Shia Islam rhymes with illegitimate and nefarious?
Allow me to demonstrate by quoting Mr. Friedman from the New York Times: “Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.”
How many times can you write the word: Shia with such bile and not transform into a Daesh spokesperson?
Is it what irks Washington and its allies in the region: the fact that Shia Islam and the principles it stands for: religious pluralism, social justice, and patriotism … among a few other things, have gained traction of late?
Now, to my game:
What if Mr. Trump’s selective outrage before President Assad’s alleged and unsubstantiated chemical attack on ISIS stronghold was really a ploy to offer the terrorist organization’s army the opportunity of a military comeback? Because from where I’m standing America’s rhetoric aligns eerily with that of terror - only with more sophistication. By that, I mean the US is playing passive aggressive sectarianism rather than outright genocidal … Why lean so heavily on parties’ religious affiliations and tones if not to promote that very religious hatred Wahhabism has claimed as its birthright?
What if America’s military intervention in Syria and the pitiful show it has since rolled out against Syria’s legitimacy was really to save America’s very own geopolitical assets in the region, regardless of the human cost, irrespective of the consequences.
Who really benefited from that chemical attack, the West so keenly blamed on President Assad?
Who ended up dying in their dozens if not those communities ISIS militants and ideologues have yearned to genocide? As it happens, those civilians radicals butchered were Shia Muslims … Are we still wondering whose ideology and whose side US war hawks sit on?
If America neocons can theorize an alliance with ISIS to forward their agenda, why smite Russia and Iran for siding with Syria against terror on the basis of international law? Can we agree that Washington’s argument has no leg to stand on except those terror militants have constructed?
What is so very bad about choosing to defend a land, people, and a system of governance that reject the exclusionism of Wahhabism? Have we lost our minds so completely that out of political spite we are willing to consider the slaughter of millions and still call it good and fair?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.