Across the Bay

Thursday, June 21, 2007

The Job of an Agent of Influence

The dishonest regime flack in question decided to respond to my post. And as usual, as he did with Michael Young, he constructed a typically dishonest strawman argument, that bears no resemblance to anything I said and obviously evaded the point. But such is the job of regime apologists and flacks, or what Young more accurately dubbed "willing agent of influence."

I've decided to save the rest of the dishonesty and apology for terrorism for another time. For now, I'll just note the staggering quote below:

Both Lebanese and Syrians would be better served if the US could find the courage to nudge Israel and the other actors in the region toward the negotiating table. All the peoples of this small region have legitimate gripes that should and can be hashed out. Not to try is foolishness. Tony’s conclusion that Syrian statesmen use force because they are evil is nonsense. Those who act on such assumptions will only do greater harm. Rather than refining his skills as an insult-walla, Tony should come up with solutions that might actually work.

Once again, the apologist for terrorists comes in to bank on his pals' terrorism, asking us to reward that terrorism. I mean listen to this thuggish, gangster formulation: "you'd be better served if the US does what we want!" This precisely proves the point of my post. It wouldn't be the first time Landis put forth this mobster formulation. Remember this one? "America, I think, is going to be forced to bend to that. If it continues to resist, we're going to see more violence." Who's the thug again, Landis?

The point is not peace talks, as Landis himself has proved in the past. The issue is the re-domination of Lebanon, the termination of the tribunal, the assassination of its leaders, journalists, judges, and politicians, as well as its civilians. The issue is the terrorist war being waged against a sovereign country and its institutions by a terrorist rogue regime.

Landis wants to turn this terrorist war against Lebanon into a "legitimate grievance," as though Lebanon has control over the Golan! This is so pathetic it's almost funny, were it not used by this corrupt individual to justify a terrorist war against Lebanon. It's as funny as the old "Syria wants to get back the Golan, but it doesn't know how" idiotic line that Landis spit out in one of his radio appearances. Yeah, poor Syria. It "doesn't know" how to get back the Golan, so it just goes about murdering Lebanese people. Cut it some slack, won't you!? Terminate the tribunal, give it Lebanon, let it kill unmolested. It has "legitimate grievances" for crying out loud!

But here's the really morally repugnant heart of this apologist's propaganda: "[the] conclusion that Syrian statesmen use force because they are evil is nonsense. Those who act on such assumptions will only do greater harm." This is an astonishing statement, but so telling about the person who wrote it and his job.

Note the disingenuousness: Syrian "statesmen" use "force." If there's an example of Landis' corruption and dishonesty, this is it right here. If he sanitizes the language (as in "sphere of influence" to replace "colonization" or "Hariri died" to replace Syria obliterated him with a 1.2 to car bomb), then the foulness of what he's whitewashing should disappear too. They're not terrorist murderers who order assassinations and car bombs against civilians. They're "statesmen." You see? This is like what any Western official would do! They use "force." Force as in assassinate journalists, MPs, judges, party leaders, ministers, and civilians. Wait, I got it. Bin Laden is a "statesman"! A terrorist war is "realism"! And if we insist on condemning it, we "do greater harm"! Amazing! Now, we're the one responsible for the terrorism! Landis has transfered the evil of his pals in Damascus onto us. We can't even call it "evil" (although, naturally, this was not part of my post. This is another typical Landis distortion.) Now he can sleep better at night.

This reminded me of a line by Landis' idol. His senior colleague and dynasty scribe, Patrick Seale: "Some would say that Chirac’s personal obsession with Hariri and his anger at Syria have affected his judgement. He seems to have refused to recognize that, so long as the Arab-Israeli conflict remains unresolved, Syria has vital security interests in Lebanon, where it cannot tolerate a hostile government, or the influence of a hostile external power."

And presto, terrorism is justified. Chirac -- indeed all of us -- we are told, should have "the better judgment" than to actually try and fight terrorism. We should "recognize" that Syria has the right to use terrorism against a sovereign state and its people, because it "cannot tolerate a hostile government" and because it has, to use Landis' term, "legitimate grievances."

A clearer apology for terrorism, there is not. And Syria, according to these "smart" individuals, should also have the right to determine what politician is "hostile" or not, and whether the government supported by more than half of the Lebanese people is to be toppled, by assassination if necessary.

In other words, all Syria has to do to get a carte blanche to murder people is to continue to have the grievance of the Golan! That sounds like a deal to me. This is precisely why a ten-year "process" led nowhere. With this kind of props, who wants the Golan back?!

I mean if there were to be a single line to describe this evil pathology, this would be it. The moral repugnance is astounding. The dishonesty is staggering. The thuggishness is overwhelming.

I'm sorry, I don't know what a "walla" is, but you bet I will continue name and attack this kind of intellectual thuggery and apology for terrorism and support for murderers. As for your "solutions": abandoning Lebanon to the Assad terrorists, accepting and justifying and whitewashing murder, trashing international law, and waging war against a sovereign state, well, you can keep those to yourself.

Update: But if you're looking for a solution, how about the one proposed by the Lebanese themselves, as well as the Arabs, the Europeans and the Americans: that the Lebanese be left alone to run their own affairs, that they not be murdered and subverted, that their neighbor should not maintain a client group in the country and use it to wage war on another neighbor.

And in exchange, Lebanon will not let its territory be used to subvert or attack Syria.

It sounds reasonable enough, yet it's funny that the terrorists aren't interested in this "diplomatic" solution which European, Arab, and US diplomacy has offered them.

In fact, wasn't this what Hariri offered them? What was the result? Oh yeah, Hariri "died."