Sometimes you've to be stupid to be contreversial: manupulating the historical events for ideological goals

Some people, from the Arab world, who live abroad just love to seem "unarab" as much as they can. There are deeper reasons for that: paradoxally one of them could be a past of deep and irrational hatered to the "west".
On the other hand there is an immediate reason for that: they have a secterian public in the "west" who just love to have some arabs who would reproduce the exact racial jargon that they are producing. What best for the "Daniel Pipes" wondering in the States to have little Arab "Pipes" who just repeat "a la lettre" what is already said by the "Daniel Pipes". Being contreversial for such people is the "way out" to the lights... You'd find a public even if you're stupid! What's better?!
Of course the million dollars question is: could you be liberal-independent-secular only if you become a "Pipes"? Obviously not.

There are, however, many categories of Arab "Pipes": professional and amateurs. This time I'd be talking about the amateurs and I'll save my comments about the profesional for another occasion when I'd have really the appropriate time.

For now, when I don't really have enough time, which is just appropriate for an amateur "Pipes", here is an example of an amateur arab "Pipes" who I discovered today. A fellow Tunisian blogger living in the States who decided that what's happening in Lebanon and Palestine is just the conitnuation of an "eternal turth" going back to the Punic period consisting of a pattern of suicidal behaviour.
I'll just re-post my comment:
Please if you'd like to make a political comment about a contemporary event don't try to justify it with something that could have happened thousands of years ago. This is just an ideological comment that is not different than what you're trying to criticize. If you'd like to make your point just be realistic and look at the matter at hand and don't make it as an eternal truth (Arabs, Lebanease... whatever... "are suicidal since ages") and, it follows from such an argument, that there is no need to focus on what's happening; it is just enough to remember that "eternal truth".Your view is not different than the actual intentions of the "classical [Roman] sources" that were the only sources of the alleged Punic child sacrifices, which were trying to justfy the Roman annihilation of a "barbaric" Carthage. I know you're just ignorant in matters of history, and you're not pretending to be someone who knows... But in that case you have to try to learn seriously about such matters rather than talking as if you're an expert. In fact there is a whole discussion, and a serious and unpoliticised one about the matter of "punic child sacrifice", by the leading experts... and from some period now (mainly since the 1960s) more and more historians and archeologists are leaning towards the negation of such allegations. You can at least mention that such allegations are contreversial if you're a bit honest.But clearly you're not, or worse you're even ignorant that they are contreversial: following your posts you're just trying to be contreversial; still you're clearly ignorant, I must say, both in historical and contemporary matters. Finally, Here is a primary link that presents a balanced view about the discussion on the allegations of "punic child sacrifices"; but only for those who really want to know!