When a Western correspondent in Beirut feigns humanitarian concern for Arab victims: the case of Anne Barnard

Look at this distasteful article by Ms. Barnard.  Notice that she invoked the clearly racist terminology of "Muslims-versus-Muslims".  This racist terminology was borrowed from Apartheid South Africa when the regime talked about "blacks-killing-blacks", as if Muslims are killing other Muslims for being Muslims or as if when "Muslims-are-killing-Muslims" the Western governments are not involved. There is no case of civil war or conflict in the Middle East in which Western governments are not directly involved in arming or abetting or inciting or funding one side against another, and in perpetuating the conflict. Name one conflict in the last fifty years in which US/Israel were not directly involved.  Just one.  But it is rather classic that Ms. Barnard basically is lamenting that the US did not invade and occupy Syria.  Because she can't be complaining about US not intervening in Syria; US intervened in Syria and bombed and funded and armed rebel groups but it was not to the tune that Ms. Barnard and other Western correspondents in Beirut wanted.  Notice that their only concern about Trump's bombing (as much as they cheered it) was that it was not more massive bombing. Those are the correspondents who are not happy unless the US invades and attacks massively.  Of course, the motives of Ms. Barnard and others can't be humanitarian: can you imagine her daring to call for US to intervene militarily to attack Saudi Arabia? Ms. Barnard covered the last Israeli war on Gaza, and she never wrote an article in which she lamented the lack of Western intervention against Israel.  Also, notice that her article did not mention Palestinians once. Not once.   Western correspondents are only allow to cry and emote over cases when the one side is approved by Western governments.  So the tears have to be authorized before hand.  Also, look at this delicious quotation by a White Man: "“We’ve thrown values by the wayside, but also not been able to act in our own interests, because we let things go too long,” said Joost Hiltermann, a Dutch citizen who is the Middle East director for the International Crisis Group." What are "our values" here exactly? Are those the values of conquest and war and destruction and occupation?  What values? And I like how Westerners act as if US reluctance to invade and attack Syria is the only glaring exception to US promotion of democracy and human rights throughout. They make it sound as if the US is promoting democracy and human rights in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman and that Syria is the only exception to US democracy rule and that US needs to invade and occupy Syria in order for the Middle Eat regional order of democracy to complete.  I mean, if you are someone form another planet, the scenario seems benevolent enough.  Finally, has there been a regime change in which the US has been able to replace a lousy regime by a regime more lousy than the past one?  Ever? The US in fact achieves miracles by arranging for a worse regime to always replace a brutal and lousy regime. It never fails.  But Ms. Barnard was saying that Western governments upheld humanitarian values since WWII and for that reason she wants US to invade and occupy Syria to uphold those values.