As I was sipping my Messiah Bold Ale, the official beer of drunks for Hizballah, when I came across David Brooks latest article in the esteemed NYT about Obama and Hizballah.
In typical snide Brooks fashion, he lashes out at Obama for his policy while providing no history. No solution other than the failed status quo.
You see, in NYT-land, wearing a suit, talking about 'democracy' and 'human rights' in front of a camera or in print are all that matter. That is why he hates Chomskyland.
I will explain below, but there are graphic images.
In NYT-land, the March 14th forces are the forces of good and right and pure. They are the 'Cedar Revolution!' They don't do wrong. Whenever they get in front of TV camera, they praise Bush. They praise democracy. They are the good guys.
Here are David Brooks good guys, Thomas Friedman's progressives, killing tied up men:
Of course, in NYT-land, Ethiopian troops occupying Somalia at our behest so they can pass an oil law we like is a good thing.
Ethiopian troops supporting Somalia's interim government are killing civilians by slitting people's throats, gouging out eyes and gang-raping women, Amnesty International said Tuesday.
link
I wonder if Bush went to Chop-Chop square in Saudi today? Chop-Chop square in Riyadh is where they behead and lob off limbs of people.
Arar's kicker is its cruel swords. Saudi Arabia beheaded 137 people last year and has beheaded 28 already this year, many of them in Arar. (Unlike other conveyor-belt slayer states like, say, Florida and Texas, where executions are the province of a single prison, Saudi Arabia's lone federalized system is its beheadings: the kingdom sprinkles them around. They are, after all, the only form of theater allowed in the land of Wahhabis.) Among them last November, in Arar: Mustapha Ibrahim, an Egyptian pharmacist accused of "sorcery." He'd apparently counseled a married couple to separate.
link
In NYT-land, the above people are all called moderates.
So now we know what passes for moderation in NYT-land, lets re-visit Brooks and Hizballah.
Circa 1982. Shi'ites had very little political representation. Farmers. Israel came and occupied their land. Sadly for Israel, this came at the same time as Iran was spreading out anti-Imperialist feelers. Between Shi-ites pissed at being occupied and Iran offering a support, various organizations started to gel.
Also, many of the more wealthy left the constant war. Many of them Christians. And since the election laws and political system was based on sectarian ratios, when those ratios drastically changed, so did the political imbalance. So while most democracies screw the rural folks, Lebanon doubly screwed them. They were poor AND of the non-political Shi'ite class.
How does Brooks think we should resolve this glaring political imbalance? Arm the Sunni radicals in northern Lebanon I guess. Actually trying to redo the political system to balance out the power is 'appeasement.'
Of course Brooks' policy, and those like him, have done nothing but empower Hizballah and Hamas, but he doesn't address that.
But as I'm a drunk for Hizballah, I guess I should be for this idiotic mindset. Please Mr. Brooks. Keep attacking Hizballah while ignoring the Salafist in northern Lebanon. While ignoring the armed thugs that kill Syrian workers in spite. Ignore the corruption. Ignore it all. Call Hizballah more names. Next year this time, President Nasrallah will be quite pleased.