Even when we're told pointblank why "they hate us," just don't pay any attention to them. When the latest would-be hijacker, who failed to bring down a Northwest airplane, says that he wanted to retaliate for the bombing of Yemen a couple of weeks ago, just ignore his claim, and don't listen to what he says are his motives. We know better.
We know that they hate us because they are evil, wicked, godless people. They hate us for our "freedoms." They hate us because they don't have the love of our God in their hearts. They're simply vicious people who hate the Baby Jesus. So, what can you expect from them?
There's no reason to listen to anything they have to say. Just keep bombing the crap out of one country after another. Just go kill the next eight children who get in the way. And when someone like Congressman Ron Paul reasons that the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are in their seventh and ninth years, and that Muslims want us out of their countries, well, just throw the "anti-Semite" smear at him and dismiss his rational assertions. That's what grown-up, mature people do, isn't it?
It's what the desperate Ben Stein does, who could not deny the logic of Paul's remarks. Instead, on CNN's Larry King show, Stein had to resort to playing the anti-Semite card. When asked why terrorists from around the world are targeting the United States, instead of other free societies, in fact, ones geographically closer to them, Stein's pathetic response was, "because they're psychos."
Never did Stein explain the connection between desiring the United States to cease waging useless wars and the charge of anti-Semitism. Surely he was not suggesting that when Americans wish to operate in their own country's self-interest, they must not be allowed that right, since it might interfere with the interests of a foreign country, that is, Israel. Is Stein saying that any American who would put their own country's interests first is, ipso facto, an anti-Semite? Is this what he was suggesting?
In Congressman Ron Paul 'Anti Semitic' for Questioning, writer Grant Lawrence claims that anyone who questions why we need to occupy foreign lands in the Middle East is in danger of being labeled a Terrorist Supporter or Sympathizer and might wind up placed on a Watch List or a No Fly List. The other danger is being labeled an "anti-Semite."
Ron Paul has been warning about the possibility of retaliatory attacks even before the 9/11 disaster. But people who are bombed, writes Lawrence, are not supposed to strike back. "That is terrorism." How could anyone expect the bombing of Yemen to make the people of Yemen and their supporters "mad as hell" and to want to strike back? Obviously, only "psychos" would be roused to retaliate. And, obviously, continues Lawrence, "Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, and the people of Yemen are also crazed racists because they don't like to be bombed and occupied. So Ben Stein's reasoning here is on solid ground." These people, too, must be "anti-Semites."
In a commentary for The Examiner, Thomas Eddlem writes that Stein denies the possibility that anyone could be motivated to attack the United States "because our government is in the business of blowing up people across the Middle East."
Eddlem raises the question of how Ben Stein feels about George Washington's admonition for the United States to stay out of foreign entanglements. Stein answers that question on his blog, in which he posted remarks the day after his appearance on King's show. His response goes something like this: a person is an anti-Semite only if he applies George Washington's principle to all nations, which would include Israel.
Get it? It's okay to follow Washington's advice, as long as you don't apply it to Israel. If you do apply it to Stein's favored land, then, like Ron Paul, you're an anti-Semite. Get it?
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Stein is a low class Zionist who is knee deep in money and hype and does not have any foundation in reality.
Nothing worse then a pathetic loser with money or an agenda. Even worse at the idiots that listen to these bottom feeders.
Sounds to me that Mr. Stein is trying to manipulate free speech by using a "hate phrase" to quiet legitimate dissent about a nations impact on our own country.
If we do the same complaint about another country then its ok, but not about Israel. I have not met that kind of psychological illogic before, so I am unsure what you would call that malady that his afflicted with, but it needs treatment soon.
Is he an Israeli? Maybe that is why? If he is but is also an American then he is already in violation of his Torahs admonition to put his adopted country first and foremost.
He is the one with the problem, not the rest of us who no longer respond to such slurs. In fact and other supporters of Israel, like the ADL and SPLC are losing friends and making more enemies for Israel with that kind of slurring, slander and recommended violence against those who disagree with Israel.
That is also dangerous. Which makes them someone to be afraid of and to watch carefully.
Hello Ms. Wright,
You are correct to say that our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are not endearing the Muslims to us. You might argue, and you might be correct though I doubt it, that our bases in Saudi Arabia and our aid to Israel alone somehow angered Yemenis and Pashtuns in the years leading up to 9/11 (but why should Pashtun goatherders give two cents what happens to Palestinians unless the two peoples are bound by the sacred ties of Islam?).
But then you say this,
They hate us because they don't have the love of our God in their hearts. They're simply vicious people who hate the Baby Jesus.
If you mean to say by this that the Muslims' hatred of Christendom (aka "the West") has nothing to do with Christ, then you are mistaken. The Muslims' religion commands them to go out into the world and conquer the lands of non-Muslims. Most Muslims don't follow this any more than most Catholics follow the Great Commission ("Go out two by two into all nations..."). But some do. And thus ever since the inception of Christianity we've had missionaries. And ever since the inception of Islam we've had jihadis.
Any theory of Islamic terrorism that fails to take into account the enduring historical presence of these jihadis (i.e. one that also covers the period between 622 and 1948 AD) is simply incomplete.
Bartholomew wrote:
Most Muslims don't follow this any more than most Catholics follow the Great Commission
Yes, keep that in mind. And also keep in the mind the fact that we should get the hell out of their territories, quit meddling in their centuries-long disputes, and mind our business about their "quaint" social practices that involve only themselves.
Before the U.S government began meddling in the Middle East in earnest, before its capture by Israel devotees, Muslims were sitting over there in their countries, for centuries, hurling curses at the depraved West, and looking upon Westerners as degenerates, a notion shared by many Westerners themselves. But it never occurred to Muslims to make war on these more powerful nations -- jihad beliefs, or no jihad beliefs. People are usually not foolish enough to carry out dictums written in some holy book, no matter what the religion.
It's easy enough to find out if there can be a return to those days of yore. Remove all our troops from their lands and cease dispensing billions (more like trillions) of dollars to Israel and all the Middle Eastern countries. Then let's see what happens.
Ms. Wright wrote,
And also keep in the mind the fact that we should get the hell out of their territories, quit meddling in their centuries-long disputes, and mind our business about their "quaint" social practices that involve only themselves.
Yes that makes sense; I completely agree.
Once we do that, I would go one step further, though. I would demand that Muslims in the West return the favor: that is, that they vacate our territories. If we fail to require that, then any withdrawal from the Middle East will just look like weakness, which is of course exactly what it would be, and the jihadis will interpret that weakness as an excuse to continue their conquest.
Remember, Muhammad did not simply set up shop in Medina and die a peaceful death, did he? He conquered, continuously. And his followers kept his winning streak going, nearly unbroken, from M's death in 632 until the Franks finally stopped his followers all the way up in France in 732.
In just 100 years, a rag-tag band of Arab savages conquered the rest of Arabia, North Africa, Iberia and half of France. And even after the Franks sent them scurrying back over the Pyrenees, the Muslims went on to launch several successive attacks against Europe all the way up through Barbary (Muslim) attacks against American sailors.
I'd like America today to do what America did then in 1805. Defend Americans muscularly when they're threatened, defeat the enemy swiftly and thoroughly and then go home. Any military that babbles about "nation building" and "hearts and minds" demonstrates that its primary focus is not on defending itself but rather its enemy. Such a military is doomed from the start.
Bartholomew wrote:
I would go one step further, though. I would demand that Muslims in the West return the favor: that is, that they vacate our territories.
Absolutely. There should be a determined movement to make them leave. But the white man, having devolved into a weird sort of coward, won't say "Boo" face-to-face to coloreds upfront, although he doesn't mind bombing the crap out of them from the skies. (Actually, those sadistic Generals are just as happy to bomb the crap out of other whites, when the opportunity presents itself. They're not picky.)
Muhammad did not simply set up shop in Medina and die a peaceful death, did he? He conquered, continuously.
Oh, please spare me the history about the Franks and Martel, for heaven's sakes. These are the cockamamie excuses that the crusading Evangelical, warmongering scum use. In the here and now of recent history, if Western nations had not opened their borders to this insane, massive immigration, there would be no threat.
Europeans once knew well that Islam represents another civilization, whose members have no intention of assimilating into Western civilization. Hence, Europeans sensibly kept Muslims out of their lands, except in small numbers. And the Muslims eventually learned restraint when it came to Western power. It is the West that has stirred up this hornet's nest, where every day it creates angrier and angrier Muslims with long memories.
Post a Comment