The “anti-imperial” Left are a highly selective bunch of people. Selective in what atrocities outrage them. Selective in the events they choose to recall. Selective in which war criminals to get worked up over, and which ones to defend as beacons of freedom against “American hegemony”.
These days, the Left have become synonymous with the word “hypocrisy”, and no one exemplifies that camp’s complete and utter lack of integrity more than the pseudo-intellectual Lebanese Marxist who fled to the USA in 1983, Ass’ad Abu Khalil aka Angry Arab, who in just one day managed to spew more hypocrisy and self-contradiction, than a normal person could manage in a week. If hypocrisy was a power source, Angry Arab could generate enough of it to solve all of the planet’s energy problems.
Conspiracy theories, the staple of many an angry blogger. Events in Syria have provided endless material for those inclined
towards paranoia and far fetched tales of collusion that would strain the imagination of the world’s best writers of spy thrillers. From the president of the Syrian junta who thinks that the United Nations, Organization of Islamic States and Arab League are all out to get him because of his “steadfast resistance” of Israel (said resistance consisting of him steadfastly refraining from firing a single bullet towards Israel), to the “anti-imperial” Left who have managed the remarkable mental feat of claiming that the man who killed 27,000 Syrians is a “victim”.
Discussions and debates on Syria are rife with numerous conspiracy theories, and so it is therefore fitting that we acknowledge and award the most fringe, lunatic and absurd conspiracies of the week, lest they and their ridiculous proponents be lost to mankind forever. And who better to name a conspiracy award after than the man to whom outlandish conspiracy theories are the bread and butter of his existence; the Marxist who wasn’t Marxist enough to prevent him from living in the USA since 1983, the man who pontificates at length on countries he’s never stepped foot in, the impotently and eternally angry, the Angry Arab, Ass’ad Abu Khalil.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, Arabs living in the USA were quick to plead that the actions of a couple of dozen terrorists were not a true reflection of the beliefs of over a billion of the world’s Muslims. Racial profiling at airports was loudly condemned, and anyone who suggested that Muslims were inherently blood thirsty and savage was denounced as a racist. And yet, when it suits them, the intellectually bankrupt Left have no problem whatsoever, if it serves the purpose of “anti-imperialism”, in painting Muslims from Libya, to Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria with the same brush, as lunatic-extremist Jihadists who live to murder Americans.
One of the joys of the a free and open Internet is the abundance of bloggers one can find there, and who serve as a convenient, inexhaustible and eternal source of material for anyone looking for examples on the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left. Ass’ad Abu Khalil (aka Aaaaaaaaaaaaangry Arab) is just one. Here is yet another careless entry from his blog, where he comments on the latest United Nation report on war crimes in Syria;
So basically, it is the frequency and scale of war crimes that make them bad. So if one commits war crimes at lesser frequency and scale, one would receive Western support. OK. I am glad that we have it on paper now.
I can’t believe this actually needs to be explained to someone who teaches at the university level. Yes, ya Angry One, it may come as a shock to the Left, but the frequency and scale of a movement or regime’s crimes do make a difference. It’s the difference between an isolated incident and a pattern of behavior. A crime infested neighborhood that has murders every week and drug crimes is different from an upscale one that has the occasional car theft. A person who is always in and out of jail is different from one who was cited one case of vandalism in their youth. And if Professor Batekh still needs more analogies, we can cite the actions of American forces in World War 2, and compare it to the barbaric behavior of Ass’ad Ex-Marxist Abu Khalil’s beloved Soviet Union.
This little tidbit appeared on Ass’ad Abu Khalil’s blog;
Comrade Amer sent me this: “Look how propagandistic they can be, even when the claim is patently false and everybody knows it. When did they ever withdraw due to the loss of civilian life?”
It’s careless and stupid remarks like these that open the door to a well-earned chastening by people who know way, way better. Commentators on the Left have made a name for themselves for being intellectually-lazy tin-foiled conspiracy nuts when it comes to Syria, but this little post, which I’m sure Angry Arab didn’t think twice about posting, just illustrates how pitiful and shallow the Left’s knowledge of events in Syria are. To sophisticated, knowledgeable analysts, the FSA’s role in protecting Syrian civilians has made it a text book example for all Arab revolutionary movements, especially when compared to the disgraceful actions of the Assad regime. Abu Khalil’s beloved Palestinian and Lebanese militant groups would do well to learn from the example of the FSA.
Today, an article by As’ad AbuKhalil (aka Angry Arab) appeared in the English version of Al-Akhbar, a newspaper associated with Hizbollah. In his lengthy piece, Abu Khalil calls Western reporting on Syria “shameful”, and “cowardly”. Abu Khalil lists his beefs with Western media in twenty-two points, most of which are the usual, insubstantial-as-vapor whines we have come to expect from the angry left (things like “all the coverage is the same”, “Western journalists cheer-lead one side”, and the usual whine “distortion and mis-characterization of one side in the conflict.“).
Shameful indeed. Shameful that someone who has never been to Syria in his life, and who hasn’t lived in the Arab World since he fled to the USA in 1983, would call the work of the brave and magnificent Western journalists who routinely risked their lives to tell the world of the terrible events in Syria, “shameful”.