Tears Of A Clown

Another day, and another mass shooting has claimed the lives of many innocents; this time it was 20 children and six adults murdered by 20-year old Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

It’s one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history and it’s just one more in a history of mass killings by lone gunmen that – for whatever reason – decided to take their rage out on a group of people who didn’t deserve to be shot. Some, like the neo-Nazi killer Wade Michael Page, did so in the name of political ideology. But most others seem to have done it due to mental illness, as is the case of Lanza.

Nonetheless, it’s a national tragedy and many people are grieving as though they, too, lost a child in the attack … including Obama, who shed a tear in an unusual moment for a commander-in-chief while he delivered a statement:

“‘Our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents sisters and brothers of these children,’ Obama said of the victims. Of those who survived, he said, the parents ‘know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early and there are no words that will ease their pain.’ At the end of his statement, Obama abruptly left the podium without taking questions.”

Touching and perfectly executed. There was only one problem – the whole thing reeked of hypocrisy when seen in the light of the drone war being waged in Afghanistan and Pakistan that’s run in secrecy.

The day before the school shooting, Sajjad Shaukat summed up Obama’s Drone War in his article, “Killing Civilians: Obama’s Drone War in Pakistan“:

“Nonetheless, these strikes are illegal, unethical and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty as well as the UN Charter. But U.S. warrior President Obama remains intransigent in continuing his secret war through drone attacks.”

By his command, these attacks killed over a hundred Pakistani children – more than were killed at the school – and left their parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers  broken-hearted.

I wonder if Obama will shed any tears for them as well?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Thinking Alike Of Great Minds

The egos of far rightists never cease to amaze me … especially when they refer to themselves in lofty terms that clearly don’t apply.

Take this gem from Jamie Glazov on David Horowtiz’s FrontPage website:

“Asia News recently reported how the misogynist crime of female genital mutilation (FGM) continues to be a ‘widespread traditional practice’ in ‘rural areas and more remote areas of Indonesia, particularly the island of Java.’ The story makes sure to remind us, naturally, that while this crime is being perpetrated in a Muslim country, the crime ‘is not a rule set in a rigid manner by the precepts of Islam.’ It is only widespread, we are consoled, because of the actions of ‘the more extreme and integral fringe.’

In her coverage of this news report, freedom fighter Pamela Geller shrewdly asks the key question that somehow mysteriously eludes the minds of every breathing human being in our mainstream media: ‘The fringe made it widespread?’

Indeed, if only the ‘extreme and integral fringe’ supports this sadistic and vicious crime against women, and if it is ‘not a rule set in a rigid manner by the precepts of Islam,’ then where are all the Muslim imams, muftis and clerics in the world, and in Indonesia in particular, vociferously denouncing and repudiating this crime as un-Islamic and coming to the defense of Muslim women?

If you’re going to call someone a “freedom fighter,” they should be actively fighting for freedom, no? Freedom is a word and like any word, it can mean whatever the user wants it to mean. A useful definition – one that I think everyone can agree on – is that freedom is the opposite of tyranny and its corollary – bigotry and oppression. So, with those key concepts in mind, a “freedom fighter” fights against tyranny, bigotry and oppression.

Is Pamela Geller a “freedom fighter” according to this definition? One way to determine her fitness as one who fights for freedom can be culled from her book “The Post-American Presidency.” As she put it:

“It may be an old cliche, but it’s true: show me your friends, and I’ll show you who and what you are.”

Fair enough.

Geller is friends with one Walid Phares, author of books like “The War Of Ideas” and “Future Jihad” who also happened to have been a member of the Lebanese Phalange. The Phalange were scary; they were founded in 1936 when a group of young Christian Lebanese men went to the Olympics in Berlin and were so impressed with the Third Reich they founded their own fascist party.

They followed through on their fascist ideology by perpetrating some of the worst massacres during the Lebanese civil war – along with other Christian militias – against Muslims and primarily Palestinians … the most infamous being the Sabra/Shatila massacre in 1982 … all in order to protect the privileged position afforded to Christians by the French.

Another Geller associate is David Yerushalmi, a lawyer who once wrote that there was a “reason” the founding fathers denied slaves and women the right to vote (presumably a good one) and who wants to outlaw Islam by imprisoning practitioners. He is also against democracy, saying that the founding fathers created a constitutional republic to “insulate our national leaders from the masses.”

But it gets better; Yerushalmi – an Orthodox Jew – also wrote this piece called “Jew Hatred?“:

The Jews it seems are the bane of Western society. I will ignore the Leftist version of the Jewish problem… But the Jewish problem for conservatives is a different and quite interesting affair. It is most interesting because so much of what drives it is true and accurate. Now the high-brow among these men and women insist that they don’t hate Jews or wish them ill so in that sense the contempt is disguised much like that from the Left. The conservative variety simply professes to uncover the many and varied ways Jews destroy their host nations like a fatal parasite, especially when the host is a Western nation-state.

In other words, a self-hating Jew – the kind that Geller likes to condemn. This is the logic of antisemitism and Nazism, which she and her partner Robert Spencer have transformed into an anti-Muslim ethos with the same implications. From these associations as well as her own bigotry, we can safely deduce that Geller is no freedom fighter.

Which leaves one last question – what kind of person would endorse someone with such repugnant views and associations as a “freedom fighter?” Someone that sums up his and his fellow right-wing travelers mission with this:

“As I have documented in United in Hate: The Left’s Romance With Tyranny and Terror, the Left cannot reach its hand out in compassion and solidarity to the suffering people under Islam, or under any other tyranny. Doing so would be an admission of the evil of an adversary culture and ideology, which, in turn, casts a spotlight on the superiority and goodness of Western civilization, and therefore serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting and saving it.”

By Western civilization, he means white people. Female Genital Mutilation is more about contrasting inferiority with superiority than it is about helping women. Despite the reality of FGM’s facilitating women’s oppression, what’s clear is that once again, these “freedom fighters” are exploiting this issue to promote a racist and anti-democratic agenda.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Memo To Israel: Be Careful What You Wish For

Khaled Meshal – exiled leader of Hamas – made a triumphant return to his native Gaza strip for the first time in 45 years and gave an uncompromising speech where the Islamist group will continue to fight Israel. Meshal became famous in 1997 when Israel tried assassinating him with poison in Jordan, only to be forced to hand over an antidote when the Hashemite Kingdom protested.

Meshal’s visit marked the 25th anniversary of the group’s founding, which occurred with the start of the first intifada. In the aftermath of the eight-day Israeli assault that left over 160 Palestinians and six Israelis dead, many analysts agreed that Hamas emerged stronger than ever as the face of resistance in the eyes of Palestinians – especially when the alternative Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority relies on American/EU financial assistance and is seen as a corrupt partner of the West/Israel that prefers a negotiated settlement that will never happen.

That’s what the media reported.

Here’s what the media failed, with few exceptions, to report: that 25 years ago Israel worked with then newly established Hamas to undermine the secular nationalist Fatah-dominated Palestine Liberation Organization during the uprising. It’s a policy that goes back to the origins of the Islamic Association – Hamas’ predecessor founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in 1979.

As the UPI reported back in 2002:

“Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat, but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.

Israel ‘aided Hamas directly — the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),’ said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,‘ said a former senior CIA official.”

Despite these reports, the American mainstream media haven’t bothered to report this past relationship; no doubt as part of its pro-Israel bias that even goes beyond Israeli media. Compare the coverage of the 2004 Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin between the Associated Press and the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.

According to the AP:

“1948: Yassin family uprooted in creation of the state of Israel. Yassin grows
up in Gaza refugee camps. At age 12 is paralyzed in sporting accident. He later
raises 11 children in three-room apartment in Gaza City slum.

1987: Yassin founds Hamas from ranks of Muslim Brotherhood religious
organization. Hamas soon emerges as strongest political rival to mainstream
Fatah movement of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Hamas opposes peace talks
with Israel. Carries out scores of suicide bombings, killing hundreds of
Israelis, to thwart peace agreements negotiated by Arafat and his supporters.”

Note the gap. Now here’s Ha’aretz’s timeline:

“1948 – the Yassin family becomes refugees. Yassin grows up in Gaza refugee camps. At age 12 he is paralyzed in sporting accident. He later raises 11 children in three-room apartment in Gaza City slum.

1965 – the Egyptian intelligence service arrests Yassin for Muslim Brotherhood activities. He is held for a month.

1979 – Islamic Association, headed by Yassin, is recognized by the IDF as a counterweight to Fatah. Yassin gets medical treatment in Israel.

1984 – Yassin is sentenced to 13 years in prison for weapons possession, establishment of an armed organization and calling for Israel’s destruction.”

See the difference?

It should be noted that there was nothing unusual about Israel’s divide-and-conquer strategy of that time; it mirrored similar strategies employed by the United States in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and Turkey’s support for Kurdish Hezbollah (no relation to the Lebanese group) against the communist Kurdistan Workers Party.

Israel no doubt isn’t too happy with a strongly rooted Hamas any more than it was when Fatah was successful in winning UN recognition as a non-member observer. But, it only has itself to blame for helping give birth to an Islamist group whose charter contains quotes from the fraudulent Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion so that it could subdue Palestinians while building settlements on their land as part of its settler-colonialist agenda.

Like the famous proverb states, “be careful what you wish for …”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Robert Spencer: Warrior Of Truth

Robert Spencer is a bestselling author of anti-Muslim books and articles that supposedly shine a light on the Islamic threat to Western civilization. He has even given lectures on this subject “for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.”

Therefore, he should be able to do the research to back up his assertions. But as I show below, he makes claims that can be easily dispelled with a cursory internet search. 

In his latest post on his blog Jihad Watch, “Is your local library as free as this library in Tehran?” he compares the alleged lack of free speech in the United States – due to “political correctness” – to the Islamic Republic:

“While the hopelessly compromised American Library Association cravenly capitulates to the foes of free speech, at least one library in Tehran is more hospitable to free thought and a genuine exchange of ideas.

Last Monday evening I spoke at the University of California Irvine, at an event organized by an Iranian ex-Muslim who read my book Islam Unveiled after finding it in a library in Tehran. A printout of some of the listings from that library is above; you can see my books Islam Unveiled and Onward Muslim Soldiers, along with other Islamorealistic books.

When I asked my host how my books could have possibly gotten there, he told me that there were millions of Islamoskeptics and secret apostates in Iran, and they could have gotten the books into the library system there. He also told me that he and other apostates felt quite isolated and threatened in Iran (understandably so) and drew hope from Jihad Watch and other freedom sites, seeing from them that they were not alone.

So while the American Library Association marches on in politically correct lockstep, not daring to entertain any genuine dissent even as they celebrate ‘Banned Books Week,’ the truth is more welcome — quietly, cautiously, but unmistakably — in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

The “truth” is relative – what Spencer offers in his work is an opinion and a disturbing one at that; an analysis of his work found parallels between his anti-Muslimism and the antisemitism of the infamous Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher. Even more disturbing is his association with European neofascists as part of the so-called “counter-jihad” movement.

But if what he claims about the ALA is true, then American libraries wouldn’t have any of his books, right? After all, a group that “cravenly capitulates” to the right-wing bogeyman – known as “political correctness,” or what normal people call tolerance and respect for others – would make sure libraries are Spencer-free. That’s what he’s implying by comparing the ALA with a library in the heart of Islamo-fascist Iran.

So I did a Google search to find out.

I began with a search of libraries close to home, where I found that the Farmington and Bloomfield Township branches have some of his books in stock. The public libraries in Metro Detroit’s Islamic hubs Dearborn and Hamtramck also have some of his books.

Branching out, I searched the databases in the liberal hotbeds of San Francisco and New York, both of which have his books on their shelves. Searches of other major metropolitan libraries like ChicagoBoston, and Los Angeles produced the same results.

And last but not least, I searched the UC Irvine’s library database – the university where he delivered his lecture – and lo and behold, there it was: Spencer’s books available to be checked out.

In other words, he’s wrong about the state of free speech in America; an error that’s a recurring pattern throughout his work. Either he didn’t bother to do the work – which took me all of five minutes to do – or – more likely – he knew his books are available in American libraries, but omitted it knowing that his readers won’t bother to do the research, either.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rocket Man

Robert Spencer, head idiot in charge of Jihad Watch that collaborates with European neofascists and makes stupid claims – and then runs to his followers after denying said claims – has made a new claim about supposed media collaboration with Palestinians while praising Netanyahu,whose hands are stained with Palestinian blood.

Here’s Spencer’s post in its entirety:

Netanyahu: ‘Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others are deliberately harming our citizens, while intentionally hiding behind their citizens’

It is good that he said it. Not that the international media will pay any attention at all. They aid and abet the ‘Palestinian’ propaganda about Israelis harming civilians.”

Statement by PM Netanyahu on Operation Pillar of Defense to Israeli Public,” from IMRA, November 14:

Statement by PM Netanyahu (Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today (Wednesday, 14 November 2012), made the following statement:

“Citizens of Israel,

I want to praise the IDF soldiers and commanders, led by Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz , who is commanding the operation as we speak. I want to note the Israel Security Agency, headed by Director Yoram Cohen, for their vital part in the operational accomplishments that we have already achieved. I thank the citizens of Israel for their unwavering support of this operation. I thank the residents of southern Israel who are at the front, and exhibit strength and restraint.

Hamas and the terror organizations decided to escalate their attacks on the citizens of Israel over the last few days. We will not accept a situation in which Israeli citizens are threatened by the terror of rockets. No country would accept this, Israel will not accept it.

Today, we hit Hamas strategic targets precisely. We have significantly debilitated their ability to launch rockets from Gaza to the center of Israel, and we are now working to disable their ability to launch rockets towards the south. The terrorist organizations – Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others – are deliberately harming our citizens, while intentionally hiding behind their citizens. On the other hand, we avoid harming civilians as much as possible and that is one fundamental difference between us. It also indicates the big difference between our objectives, and not only in our methods. They want to obliterate us from the face of the earth and they have no qualms about hurting civilians and innocents.

Today, we sent an unequivocal message to Hamas and the other terror organizations, and if need be the IDF is prepared to expand the operation. We will continue to do everything necessary to defend our citizens.”

Could Spencer be talking about media outlets like that bastion of liberalism, the New York Times? As one of the largest and most read newspapers in the world, it would certainly fall under his category of “international media.” So what did the paper that has all the news that’s fit to print have to say about Israel’s Gaza attack?

According to an editorial published on Wednesday called “Another Israel-Gaza War?“:

“No country should have to endure the rocket attacks that Israel has endured from militants in Gaza, most recently over the past four days. The question is how to stop them permanently.”

Sounds like something Spencer would agree with. The difference, of course, lies in the question of how to stop them permanently:

“Israel has a right to defend itself, but it’s hard to see how Wednesday’s operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests. It has provoked new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries, including Egypt, whose cooperation is needed to enforce the 1979 peace treaty and support stability in Sinai.”

In other words, while Spencer wholeheartedly agrees with Netanyahu’s mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians, the Times is critical of the ongoing operation’s effectiveness. Both, however accept Tel Aviv’s narrative that it had no choice but to defend itself against Palestinian “terrorism.”

Again, the Times:

“Hamas has controlled Gaza since Israel withdrew in 2007. The group has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09. But, in recent months, Hamas has claimed responsibility for participating in rocket firings, and last week it took credit for detonating a tunnel packed with explosives along the Israel-Gaza border while Israeli soldiers were working nearby.”

In other words, Israel has done nothing to provoke this crisis – it’s only defending itself. That’s the Times take on Israel’s onslaught, which is consistent with its long-standing pro-Israel editorial line. In its news section – which is supposed to be “objective” – we see the same bias in favor of the Israeli narrative:

“Israel had already been facing growing tensions with its Arab neighbors. Israel has confronted lawlessness on its border with Sinai, including cross-border attacks. It recently fired twice into Syria, which is caught in a civil war, after munitions fell in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, and it has absorbed more than 750 rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel this year. The rockets have hit homes, caused injuries and frightened the population. On Saturday, Gaza militants fired an antitank missile at an Israeli Army Jeep patrolling the Israel-Gaza border, injuring four soldiers.”

Not to be outdone, the Washington Post regurgitated this propaganda line in its own Orwellian-tinged editorial, “Heading off full-blown war in the Gaza strip”:

THE IMMEDIATE cause of the exploding conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip was a series of attacks by Palestinian militants, including a missile fired at a jeep carrying Israeli soldiers inside Israel, and a rain of rockets against Israeli towns — more than 180 in the course of a few days. Israel could not but respond, and when it did, it chose to deliver a strategic blow: the assassination of Hamas’s military commander, Ahmed Jabari, and airstrikes against scores of sites where the Palestinians had stored a large arsenal of rockets and missiles, including Iranian-built models capable of hitting central Israel.”

And the Los Angeles Times said pretty much the same thing its editorial, “Middle East peace takes a beating,”:

Israel unquestionably has the right to defend itself against rockets fired by militants in Gaza. No nation is obliged to suffer such attacks without responding. And this year, according to Israeli Foreign Ministry officials, there have been twice as many rocket attacks as last year.”

So much for the media aiding and abetting Israel’s enemies. These editorials demonstrate that major American media outlets essentially have internalized the Israeli narrative and only criticize the Jewish state when its actions aren’t deemed to be in its best interests.

But that’s only part of the problem. The other is the narrative itself, which presents Israel as a victim frequently under attack by its antisemitic neighbors for being Jewish and that all of its actions are purely self-defense. It’s a narrative that exploits the long history of persecution of Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. Israel is merely confronting the new Nazis in the form of Palestinian and Islamist terrorists who wish to eliminate it simply because they’re Jews.

There’s only one problem with this narrative – it’s not true. And nothing demonstrates its falseness quite like the current conflict.

The current crisis began last Thursday when Israeli troops were fired on after they made an incursion into Gaza. The IDF moved into ‘Abassan village, east of Khan Yunis with three bulldozers and began to fire indiscriminately after coming under fire; a 13-year old child was killed. The obvious question is what the hell were Israeli forces and bulldozers crossing the border when a state of war currently exists between the two sides and the 2008-09 war – which was more like a massacre – is still a recent memory. The Israeli explanation is that “they were performing routine activity adjacent to the security fence,” which sounds more like a provocation designed to give the PM an edge in the upcoming January election.

And it appeared to have achieved the desired result – hours after the shooting, Hamas detonated the tunnel that injured an IDF soldier and defense minister Ehud Barak self-righteously declared that “Israel views with great seriousness the detonation of an explosive tunnel,” giving the necessary pretext to launch more attacks. While the United States predictably supported Israel, Egypt stepped into the fray to negotiate a ceasefire, only to have it shattered by the assassination of Hamas military leader Ahmed Al-Jabari. Since then, Palestinian deaths continue to climb as Israel bombs with impunity.

This is what the Israelis have actually done and it’s what both Spencer and the media defend, giving them more in common than either one will probably ever know. But as much as Robert Spencer sucks, at least he doesn’t pretend to be objective – he’s taken a side, albeit the dark side. And being less well-known and relevant, his views have less impact on public consciousness and understanding than the media.

Spencer’s assertion about the media being anti-Israel and supporting its enemies is irrational, but that’s what lies at the heart of Islamophobia – irrationality. That irrationality is in line with Israel’s absurd inversion of reality, but it’s the media’s job to untangle that web and bring clarity – in theory. The reality is that it’s role is to act as a propaganda outlet for the ruling class under the guise of “objectivity,” a fact that’s been known for some time. The fact is there’s no such thing as objectivity, so there’s a choice to be made – either you’re on the side of the oppressor or on the side of the oppressed. Robert Spencer and the media already made their choice.

And now ladies and gentlemen, Conway Twitty.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Fuck The Vote. Riot.

Here’s how I felt about the election that just went down:

Fuck the vote. Riot.

Here’s one reason why – Obama’s Veterans Day speech where he played up the fact that the United States is no longer occupying Iraq:

This is the first Veterans Day in a decade in which there are no American troops fighting and dying in Iraq.  (Applause.)  Thirty-three thousand of our troops have now returned from Afghanistan, and the transition there is underway.  After a decade of war, our heroes are coming home.  And over the next few years, more than a million service members will transition back to civilian life.  They’ll take off their uniforms and take on a new and lasting role.  They will be veterans.”

Which means they’ll probably be handicapped, or worse – have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and trouble adjusting to civilian life – like those who have committed suicide in large numbers.

Obama has been portrayed as an anti-war candidate and politician in the past, and in the case of the Iraq occupation, there’s some truth in that assertion. The then-Illinois Senator joined with other members of Congress on Sept. 26, 2002 urging Bush not to invade. On Oct. 3, he addressed an anti-war rally the day after Congress authorized the invasion. And, on March 17, 2003, he addressed another anti-war rally two days before the actual invasion.

So when he declared that no more American troops were fighting and dying in Iraq, it appears he’s been consistent all along, right?

Wrong. If Obama had his way, we would still have American troops in Iraq.

The reason for the military withdrawal at the end of 2011 was due to a deal negotiated and agreed by the Bush administration called the Status Of Forces Agreement, or SOFA. The Obama administration was so sure Iraqi leaders would agree to the U.S. staying longer that Leon Panetta assumed they did, only to be contradicted by the Iraqi Foreign Minister:

“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Iraq’s government has agreed to extend the U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2011 — but Iraq quickly rejected the claim.

The word from Panetta, during an interview with Stars & Stripes, was the first official indication that any of the 46,000 American troops will remain in Iraq beyond the country’s Dec. 31 deadline for U.S. forces to leave. The U.S. and Iraq reached a security agreement in 2008 that the entire American military would be out of the country by the end of 2011.

   ‘My view is that they finally did say, ‘Yes,’’ Panetta told the military’s official newspaper. He told the paper he urged the Iraqis six weeks ago to ‘damn it, make a decision’ about allowing U.S. troops to remain in the country into 2012.

But shortly after Panetta’s interview hit the Internet, a spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told Agence-France Presse that no deal is in place.

‘We have not yet agreed on the issue of keeping training forces,’ spokesman Ali Mussawi said. ‘The negotiations are ongoing, and these negotiations have not been finalized.’

Panetta said the Pentagon has already begun planning for the continued presence in Iraq.”

The main sticking point was legal immunity for the few thousand American troops the Obama administration wanted left behind. The Iraqis refused:

“The Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq expires at the end of the year. Officials had been discussing the possibility of maintaining several thousand U.S. troops to train Iraqi security forces, and the Iraqis wanted troops to stay but would not give them immunity, a key demand of the administration.

‘This deal was cut by the Bush administration, the agreement was always that at end of the year we would leave, but the Iraqis wanted additional troops to stay,’ an administration official said. ‘We said here are the conditions, including immunities. But the Iraqis because of a variety of reasons wanted the troops and didn’t want to give immunity.'”

Hmmm, I wonder why they didn’t want to grant American forces immunity? What could it possibly be?

Whatever the reason was, Obama didn’t get his way but he did put his best spin on it and portrayed it as fulfilling a campaign promise as the allegedly anti-war candidate progressives fawned over in 2008. Yet as the National Journal put it:

“President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.”

That’s why there are no American troops fighting and dying in Iraq today. If there was an anti-occupation movement outside of the system and in the streets instead of a bunch of “progressives” worrying over whether the people they elect will actually live up to their promises this time – then there wouldn’t be any Americans fighting and dying anywhere in the first place.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Moronic Irony

Robert Spencer is an anti-Muslim far right bigot that has – among other things – collaborated with European neofascists. He’s a New York Times best-selling author; appears regularly on Fox News; and has taken part in counter terrorism training for various government agencies.

What all this means is he says a lot of really stupid shit.

On his JihadWatch blog post, “Pakistan: New bounty offer for Muhammad filmmaker — $200,000“, he made this ridiculous claim:

“Doubling the first offer. Given Obama’s repeated denunciations of the film and the fact that the filmmaker is currently under arrest, maybe he will hand him over to the Pakistanis.”

Was he kidding? Maybe – but given the broad context of making absurd claims about Islam around which he’s based his career, he shouldn’t be too surprised that someone like me would take his alleged “irony” seriously – especially since he’s known not as a satirist or humorist, but as an ignorant anti-Muslim reactionary peddling lies; or what Daniel Pipes calls “a serious scholar.”

So the question is – are his views on Obama as “dhimmi” an indication of a diseased and irrational mindset – or is he merely joking? Consider this post Revolutionary Guards commander: “Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack” on Israel”:

“World War III. But what side would Obama be on?”

Or this post about the Egyptian government charging seven Egyptian-Americans with blasphemy:

Will Obama hand them over?”

Then there’s this over-the-top “analysis” of Obama’s biblical invocation during last year’s 10th anniversary of 9/11:

“Obama reads Psalm 46, including verse 8: ‘Come, behold the works of the LORD, how he has wrought desolations in the earth.’

The only people who think that 9/11 was an act of the Supreme Being wreaking desolations on the earth are…Islamic jihadists.

So why did Barack Obama pick this psalm out of 150 psalms, and out of innumerable appropriate Biblical passages, to read at the 9/11 ceremonies? 9/11, after all, was a day when there were indeed wrought desolations on the earth. Did Obama really mean to say that God did it, that it was an act of divine judgment, rather than a monstrous and unmitigated evil?

Or is this just another one of those funny coincidences, of which there are so very, very many when it comes to Barack Obama and his remarkable, unqualified and obvious affinity for Islam?”

Actually, Islamists aren’t the only ones who think this. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blamed immorality and secularism for pissing off God, who retaliated with 9/11. Robertson has a consistent pattern of explaining disasters on theological grounds; nor is he alone – all religions feel disasters are God’s wrath.

Added to this maelstrom of brilliance is his close collaboration with Pamela Geller who has made her own irrational claims, like how Obama traveled to Pakistan and became a jihadist as well as being the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. They even co-authored a book about Obama – “The Post-American Presidency – where they made repeated hints suggesting that Obama is a secret Muslim, such as in the section called “Obama The Believer” about the speech he gave in Egypt in 2009 (and remember – in their world, Muslim = Jihadist).

So given this entire context, it’s reasonable to assume that he meant what he said as a serious observation; and I made this the subject of a tweet on my Twitter account. The conversation we had went like this – after making my initial tweet, he responded:

“Clearly you are very, very seriously irony challenged.”

To which I retorted:

“Or you are very, very seriously reality challenged. Either way, you can eat a dick.”

After that, he retweeted my response and I get a tweet from this jackass:

“Can’t tell humor /satire from serious? THATs another reason why we can’t have ‘offensive’ speech banned in the USA.”

Even if Spencer is really satirizing Obama, he’s satirizing a reality that doesn’t exist. This reality is actually a series of projections based on an inverted world of powerful Islamic forces aiming to conquer a vulnerable West led by dhimmis personified in Obama.

Take the first post – that Obama is an appeaser of radical Islam and against free speech. That flies in the face of his speech to the UN where he actually defended the freedom to blaspheme on the same day a report detailed the effects from the massive death toll in Pakistan from the increased use of drone strikes from the previous administration.

Does that sound like a “dhimmi” to you?

Never mind the fact that he killed Bin Laden, renewed the Patriot Act and reneged on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp. But if an African-American Islamist Imam is killed by FBI agents in Detroit in 2009 under Obama’s watch, a joke about the president handing over Nakoula Bassely Nakoula to Pakistan doesn’t really make sense; hence my not seeing the “irony.”

This is the reality of the last four years that Spencer whitewashed to conform with his ideology of racism and dehumanization of Muslims. Just consider this post:

Barack Obama and General John Allen should be prosecuted for the deaths of every one of the fifty troops murdered by their Afghan ‘allies’ this year. They are all victims of the politically correct unwillingness to accept unpleasant realities about Islam: that it teaches hatred of and warfare against unbelievers, the virtue of deceit in war, and the impermissibility of cooperating with or allying with infidels on a permanent and lasting basis.”

But Bush shouldn’t be prosecuted for invading the country and setting up the occupation that Obama continued?

Aside from that inconvenient little fact, Spencer reveals his indifference to the Afghans, who have experienced far greater suffering and have endured years of American occupation. Apparently, they don’t deserve justice – all because American lives matter more than those Muslims whose religion have attributes that are universal; hatred and warfare against unbelievers is as much of a biblical concept and as for “the virtue of deceit in war,” has he never heard of the Trojan horse or these other non-Islamic examples?

Such rational thinking is irrelevant to Spencer, however, because he’s an eliminationist and his work is dedicated to presenting a picture where eliminationism is the only logical solution in the face of Islamic savagery.

The truth is that Obama is a neocolonial overseer of the American empire, dedicated to the same objectives as all previous administrations – a truth Spencer and people like him have dedicated to convincing others that it doesn’t exist. Spencer’s bigotry does exist, however, both in his serious work and in his “irony.”

So the question, therefore, isn’t whether he was serious or not … it doesn’t matter. What matters more is that Spencer and his agenda must be defeated.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments