It seems like every six months or somebody publishes a photograph that goes viral and makes Americans realize there is a “situation” in the Middle East. It creates a furor for a few days, but since the analyses connected with the photos never rise above slogans, America quickly diverts its attention away from what it has done and continues to do in the Middle East. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com provides valuable context on the latest photo:
We all saw the little Syrian boy in besieged Aleppo, wiping blood from his forehead, covered in dust and clearly in shock. How could we help it? Practically every newspaper in the country printed his photo, along with a caption blaming the Syrian military and/or the Russians for his plight. The video is all over the Internet. By the way, little Omran Dagnish is still alive, and is fine physically. But there’s another little boy, a prepubescent child, who hasn’t been dignified with a name, who is also a victim of this war – and he’s dead, beheaded by US-backed Islamist rebels of the “al-Zenki” movement. And the rebels didn’t try to hide this atrocity: they filmed it and put it on the Internet.
These are the people who are defending Aleppo, the rebels we are being told are fighting for “freedom” against the regime of Bashar al-Assad and those dastardly Russians.
The video of Omran went “viral,” while the video of the nameless beheaded boy didn’t. Why is that?
The US media isn’t very interested in publicizing the latter atrocity – because in the information war to provoke US intervention in Syria on behalf of head-chopping Islamists, some children are more equal than others.
And make no mistake: the propaganda campaign is now in full swing, being pushed by the same media outlets openly campaigning for Hillary Clinton – who is on record as calling for funding of Islamist groups in Syria and overthrowing Assad. If she is elected, we’re very likely to see a full-scale US intervention, with US forces openly and aggressively confronting not only Syrian government forces but also facing off with the Russians.
The New York Times, which makes no bones about its political sympathies in this presidential contest, has unleashed well-known “humanitarian” Nicholas Kristof in the effort to gin up sympathy for the “moderate” rebels and force Washington’s hand. He babbles on about the death of his dog and the sympathy he received when he wrote about it, and then writes: “If only, I thought, we valued kids in Aleppo as much as we did our terriers!”
Not that he’s trying to manipulate us or anything.
“For five years the world has been largely paralyzed as President Bashar al-Assad has massacred his people, nurturing in turn the rise of ISIS and what the U.S. government calls genocide by ISIS. That’s why I argued in my column a week ago that President Obama’s passivity on Syria was his worst mistake, a shadow over his legacy.”
More than half of those killed in the Syrian civil war were massacred by the rebel forces, none of whose depredations are so much as mentioned by Kristof. And who, exactly, is “nurturing” ISIS – isn’t it the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti, and other pro-head- chopper Muslim states in the Gulf? In the Kristofian lexicon, you’re “nurturing” ISIS if you fight them and prevent them from taking over your country. As for President Obama’s alleged “passivity,” if only it were so! Under his regime, US taxpayer dollars financed and “nurtured” Islamist rebels who valorize Osama bin Laden and want to turn Syria into an Islamist theocracy. Kristof’s complaint is that he didn’t send them enough money, guns, and sharper knives to chop off the heads of yet more nameless boys.
Yes, this is “humanitarianism,” Kristof-style.
To continue reading: Nicholas Kristof: War Crimes Enabler