Agree with Daniel Pipes

Submitted by FX Meaney (United States), Jun 5, 2013 at 07:28

I join in praising Bret Stephens, but agree with Daniel Pipes the U.S. should not back either side in the Syrian civil war. To me, Pipes' arguments are persuasive. Age old Islamic disputes are responsible for the mutual butchery as each side strives for power. Will minorities be better off if the Muslim Brotherhood wins? Which tyranny is better or worse? Are not both sides being weakened by the war? Isn't the world getting a lesson that all the phony grievances that Muslims complain of to explain their backward conditions have everything to do with their belief system and nothing to do with the West and its values? If they battle themselves to exhaustion, who knows? Maybe common sense and a sense of decency may descend. It is tragic that so many not involved in the power struggle are being harmed and to the extent we can support relief efforts we should do so.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".