Obama Blogger: U.S. and Terrorists are Morally Equivalent

Adds blood libel of Israel, hopes the world will forget the Nazi Holocaust. (Why not just deny that there ever was a Holocaust? That would work a lot faster!)

This was posted to my.barackobama.com, which is under Mr. Obama’s editorial control. Note that:

(1) The page has a link to click for reporting objectionable material. Either no one found it objectionable, or Obama’s moderators found it perfectly acceptable. (We expect, though, that it will disappear after it becomes an Internet-wide scandal, same as for the National Black Panther Party page that had a long residence at my.barackobama.com.)

(2) Its content is 100 percent consistent with the positions of the people and entities with which Obama surrounds himself: Jeremiah Wright, MoveOn.org, Al Sharpton, and George Soros. Wright, MoveOn.org, and Soros believe that America and Israel are the primary causes of the world’s problems, while Sharpton’s hatred of white people and especially Jews is well known.

Racism, Barack, how we are seen, and our Israel Policy
By Mark Levin – Apr 10th, 2008 at 7:02 am EDT

Dear fellow Obamaphiles,

I know these issues are controversial, but they are IR-related with political relevance to Obama’s candidacy and hopefully, eventual presidency. So we should not run away from them.

In recent posts I’ve seen an uncomfortable reaction to Tony Wicher’s attempts to raise the Mideast issue with an angle that’s at variance with Obama’s position. If we were all in lockstep with Obama, there would be no reason to debate and ponder anything in the IR forum. Some of what I will say may seem a little too crude for a high-minded IR debate, but I think we should deal with the ground realities of how we are percieved abroad. Not understanding them will lead to more failures – whether that is Bush at the helm or Obama.

As indicated above, Tony “Zionist Thought Police” Wicher is not at all at variance with the positions of the people and entitities with which Obama surrounds himself, which suggests strongly that Obama is at least sympathetic to these positions as well.

A quick aside on Wright – 527s are going to pummel him in the Fall on patriotism with swiftboat style ads – and they will get a huge boost in the media through repeat plays. We better come up with the worst possibilities now by styling those ads ourselves, and coming up with parodies and mock what they might try to do. And for God’s sake, he has to stop saying “this country” and say “my country” or “our country.” He looks too tepidly passionate about America right now to get the white guys we need! He can’t disrespect the white guys with flags on their porches – and needs a way to recover from the flag lapel pin perception. Otherwise this stuff will fester under the radar….

The truth is that Obama’s camp is amassing a 527 with at least $40 million to smear John McCain, whom an Obama blogger called a “dinosaur” who should pay a “deserved visit to the undertaker.”

McCain/Dinosaur screen capture

Even though Obama has backpedaled furiously and largely successfully from his “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people” and Ed Said days, he himself has said that embracing a pro-Likud position (which he kind of has) is not equivalent to being a friend of Israel. That aligns him with the majority of left-leaning Jewish voters in the US (as opposed to Jewish leadership) and Jewish voters in Israel (people in Israel are far more attuned to the reality, and more willing to make land sacrifices than the US diaspora is).

… But let’s look at the premise. If one was to go by objective data – groups, states and individuals from Judaeochristian majority-nations have taken actions employing violent force resulting in more deaths worldwide than those coming from Islam-linked groups, states and individuals. Just tally them up and look at the last 5, 10, or 50 years. Yet, we never consider Christianity to be a “violent religion” even though our cultural moorings and policy orientations spring from our religious heritage. That characterization somehow doesn’t sit well with us. But Islam has almost a pop-cultural linkage to terrorism & violence – thanks to its portrayals in the US entertainment industry which has a global footprint. Islam and radicalism/violence – well that just makes more sense to us somehow than calling Christianity or Judaism violent, right?

When we last heard, neither Judaism nor Christianity called for the beheading or subjugation of unbelievers. The individuals who flew the airplanes into the Twin Towers were not chanting “Jesus Saves,” “Shma Yisrael,” or “Hare Krishna.”

One pro-Palestinian group, http://ifamericaknew.org/ tries to get beyond the anti-Arab/Muslim spin of CAMERA or MEMRI (both of which rely on selective, qualitative and not quantitative methods) by focusing on quantifying provable facts vs. news coverage, and focusing on comparing bodycounts of children who cannot be painted by the “military/militant/terrorist” brush that easily. When the White House or State Dept issues statements about the Middle East, it always “condemns” the death of Israeli civilians/children, and expresses, at most “regret” when Palestinian civilians/children die as a result of Israeli force – and always makes a point of explaining the Israeli action was a reaction to something the Pals did. This doesn’t pass the sniff test of fairness, for people in other nations or our people who feed on a less sterile version of news than most of us are. I don’t blame us Americans and even those who are uninformed. Most people just don’t have time to source their facts from multiple opposing sources to triangulate the truth – they rely on our media, and our mainstream journalists (with a few exceptions) fail to present a nuanced, even-handed view – that this is a clash of two equally valid worldviews, a clash of two rights, instead as a clash between right vs wrong. Why? Probably laziness and unwillingness to take any risk of being percieved as antisemitic in an industry that has sizable Jewish numbers in the editorial ranks. While one may not be black-balled to the extent such views kills political futures in Congress, it probably does exist. There is probably no conscious bias either among the Jewish journalists, but if I was one of them, I would also subconsciously downplay stories or facts that put a country I identify with in a bad light. An Indian friend of mine told me how a similar situation exists in the UAE. Most of the journalists and editors are from the Indian minority, and hence portrayals of the Kashmir issue there inevitably skew towards the Indian rather than the Pakistani position, much to the chagrin of Pakistanis and Muslims in the UAE who have not necessarily grown up with that one portrayal.

Note the part about the Joooooooooooooooooz controlling all the media, an accusation that has appeared elsewhere at Barackobama.com as well as at MoveOn.org’s disgraced Action Forum. Also note the proposition that militant Islam’s world view is morally equivalent to that of Judaism and Christianity. Now, here is an excerpt from http://ifamericaknew.com/ (If Americans Knew), the Web site that Mr. Levin cites. Right at the top (as of April 12 2008) is a blood libel of Israel.

On March 16th, 2003 an Israeli soldier driving a bulldozer two-stories high crushed to death 23-year-old Rachel Corrie, an American nonviolent human rights protestor. According to numerous witnesses and photographic documentation, she was killed intentionally.

The truth is that the International Solidarity Movement, which at least indirectly encouraged Rachel Corrie to kneel in front of the bulldozer (below the driver’s line of vision) expressed motives for wanting Rachel Corrie dead. It’s a very bad idea to say someone has been “killed intentionally” when one has expressed a motive for wanting them dead, and perhaps the ISM should be investigated for this. Levin’s piece continues,

On to how we kill. We have a healthy tolerance for “collateral damage” as long as the shrapnel killing and maiming comes from a high-tech bomb released by a “courageous” pilot from up on high, and not from some virgins-on-the-brain suicide bomber who is let’s say acting on some considerable risk to himself. Why? We take moral stances on the method of killing, while conveniently ignoring the balance of bodycounts, pain and suffering those actions cause. …Let’s forget that New Hampshire’s license plates and motto say “Live Free or Die.” We and the kamikaze Japanese warriors are somehow nobler than suicide attackers of the USS Cole – that to us is “terrorism”.

Mr. Levin conveniently omits the fact that the United States and Japan were at war, and the kamikaze planes were identifiable as enemy military aircraft. The terrorists who bombed the Cole, however, disguised themselves as civilians to get close enough to commit a treacherous act during peacetime. The above statement is, like MoveOn.org’s defamation of General Petraeus (and Obama solicited and accepted MoveOn’s support) an insult to the Armed Forces of the United States and also to brave Japanese pilots who, although they sacrificed their lives in an unjust cause, did so selflessly, honorably, and in accordance with the laws of war. Now Mr. Levin says the United States overreacted to 9/11.

3,000 Americans are murdered, and a stunning array of resources are mobilized around the world in response, and maybe $3 trillion will be spent, and a million more lives lost (extrapolating the Lancet study that estimated 650K dead in Iraq by end of 2006) in an orgy of misdirected reaction to fear. 5 million black Africans die in the Congo because of a war – and the world has probably spent less than $50 million to respond to it. Why? Then there was the Rwanda genocide. Do the math on how our world system (of which we are a vocal, influential presence) values people’s lives around the world. It is downright embarrassing and immoral. They are not stupid – when we devalue their lives through our acts of commission or omission – they take note of it. People can smell unfairness, and there is blowback. We should have never been so uninformed by the media about our heavy footprint around the world so that in the aftermath of 9/11 we were asking “why do they hate us?” – (1) we should have known already – if the media allowed the “dignity deficits” due to our policies to be shown to us at 6:30pm, we would have not been that lax about keeping our troops in places or support efforts whether the Israeli military or the Saudi dictators that insult those populations (2) we should have been smarter than to swallow the amazingly childish “they hate us because they hate our freedoms” and “we need to fight them there so they don’t come here” lines that should have insulted our intelligence. It makes no sense! Even Osama himself wants freedom and dignity for “his” people to live their own lives and be left alone. I think Obama gets it – which is why he believes, like Samantha Power, in the primacy of “human dignity” promotion globally as an effective foreign policy and counterterrorism tool.

…I understand that [Obama’s] current stance was necessary to even have a chance of getting elected – given that nearly half the funds traditionally raised by Democrats has been from the Jewish community, and the remarkable influence by pro-Israeli groups on our politicians. We should always become suspicious when Democrats and Republicans show almost zero deviations in their policy on this (which is at odds with what most other countries think) while they differ on almost all other policy issues – foreign and domestic!…

I personally believe that a one state solution, which is secular, should be the goal. Aliyah should be based on actual persecution and asylum seeking rather than some religion-based right. How is an apartheid system that has one immigration law for people of one religion, and another immigration law for those of another religion consistent with a modern, moral state?

It may not be politically tenable now. The chorus is for a two-state solution. But even if a two state split does happen – I believe the one state is a more natural and stable configuration that reflects how the region used to be – a mixed one that Jews and Arabs can call home. I believe that will happen in 100-200 years. There will be a reunification. By that time the Holocaust ‘s resonance will recede given no living survivors and the existential threat to Jews will become an interesting historical footnote.

Obama blogger equates U.S. and terrorists

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Obama Blogger: U.S. and Terrorists are Morally Equivalent”

  1. Obama Blogger: US and Terrorists are Morally Equivalent Says:

    […] eriposte wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI think Obama gets it – which is why he believes, like Samantha Power, in the primacy of “human dignity” promotion globally as an effective foreign policy and counterterrorism tool. His Israel policy will have to evolve if he is to make … Read the rest of this great post here […]

  2. Obama Blogger: US and Terrorists are Morally Equivalent | Barack Obama Chronicles Says:

    […] wingedhussar1683 added an interesting post on Obama Blogger: US and Terrorists are Morally Equivalent […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: