‘Arab world’ Demonstrates Doctrine of Hate
Posted in Israel, Terrorism, Lebanon, Hezbollah, war, wordpress, Politics, Religion, syria, Osama bin Laden, U.N., Iran, Hamas, Palestine, Foreign Affairs, Islam, Muslim, Tony Blair, Abbas, Fatah, Military, Saudi Arabia on December 29th, 2008 by Stanford MatthewsThe most telling irony this week comes from Arab protesters quick to denounce Israel’s military response to Hamas rocket attacks. Where was this outrage when Hamas began the rocket attacks? The contrived outrage over Israel defending itself from Hamas rocket attacks is the Arab self-exposure of their true feelings. It is quite obvious now as it may have been before that the ‘Arab world’ supports attacking Israel and opposes Israel defending itself. This blog has resisted publishing a statement like this in the past for lack of a well defined example of the Arab position on Israel. Some may reject the idea of their not being one before as easily as others may reject the idea that there is one now. That’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The opinion here is that there is no argument remaining that the Arab world means Israel no harm.
For those who feel inspired to criticize Israel for military action against rocket attack from Hamas the following excerpt and link is provided as the first in the chronology presented in this post. Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak that Israel’s patience was exhausted after days of rocket barrages into Israel from Gaza, and that the Israeli government would no longer accept the status quo. This of course occured before any retaliation from Israel. It is not like the rocket attacks were quietly accepted until the defensive action began. Rockets were regularly fired on Israel from Hamas and no one in the ‘Arab world’ criticized Hamas.
The ‘Arab world’ remained quiet about the rocket attacks. Funny how they got all interested in the military response that contrary to their opinion is reasonable. Say nothing about militants attacking Israel but denounce Israel’s right to defend themselves against attack. And who was affected by the Israeli response?
Nearly 300 Palestinians, most of them armed militants, have been killed since Israel launched the offensive on Saturday. But let the protesters and certain media outlets lead you to believe that civilians are paying the price for Israel’s self-defense from rocket attack.
Where is the Arab criticism for the following?
‘Used by Islamic militant group Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies’ is the key portion in this report that falls on deaf Arab ears. Other reports indicate Arabs, Muslims, whatever, criticize Arab governments for their wimpy denouncement of Israel. So what’s new? Ignore any attack on Israel but make a great deal of noise when Israel responds to attacks. It is time the ‘religion of peace’ and its followers end the double standard toward Israel. If you want the insanity to stop you must not enable it by your action or inaction. If you want peace stop blaming everyone else for the problem and accept your own responsibility for finding peace.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
In her traditional Christmas message to the country, Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II focused on the concerns many are feeling this year about the deepening economic downturn. Meanwhile, Britain’s Channel 4 Television has broadcast what it calls an alternative Christmas address, delivered by the President of Iran.
If you want to know why some people, the author of this blog included, resist the whimpy, politically correct nonsense of ‘embracing diversity’ or making special allowances for others who may not share common values the answer is simple. Before all the fuss was made about who is offending whom most people recognized the differences between cultures and did embrace diversity without being told to. That was also a characteristic of American culture. Then someone decided to make it a rule and assume Americans did not value other cultures and their customs and that they needed guidance which included abandoning their own values so as not to offend anyone from a different culture. You know what you can do with that proposal.
The ascent of Mount Arafat began early, and by sunrise hundreds of thousands of white cloaked pilgrims had converged on the site where Mohammed was reputed to have delivered his last sermon, about 14 centuries ago.
Expected: Jewish groups criticizing others for meeting with the Iranian President. Unexpected: other religious groups meeting with the Iranian President. While one might not reasonably expect everyone to hold the same opinion on Iran on every issue, recognizing Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel and therefore condemning the Iranian Preisdent and refusing to meet with him should be SOP for religious groups as well as political leaders. Since Ahmadinejad has been compared to Hitler it is not a stretch to view some recent events as similar to the coddling manner by which many also treated Hitler during his rise to power in Germany. And we all know what happened then.
Apparently the excerpt from the post above is in response to the latest development in liberal politics. The Dems obviously are reacting to the Saddleback event and their concerns that they cannot win the Presidential election without votes from a segment of the population they revile, sometimes to referred to as Evangelicals or the Religious Right. Is this their plan?
So the Dems are trying to get religion. How transparent is this cheap political ploy? Probably about the same as the rest of the liberal strategy. Doing their own Obama-like world tour to visit state sponsors of terror with gestures of appeasement did not work. Trying to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan did not work. Trying to deny the American public of domestic oil production is not working. In short their last subsititute for their typical ‘hope and change’ mantra, ‘A New Direction for America’ is not working at all. Talk about a lost cause looking for someone to throw them a bone.
What a difference a couple of months can make. Currently, at Rasmussen Reports, Huckabee has nearly the first place numbers held by Giuliani and Thompson earlier at 22%. Giuliani and Romney are in second with mid teens as McCain and Thompson follow in third in the lower teens. While McCain has been mentioned in news reports as gaining some strength of late, for example, the Peter King endorsement, his 13% is representative of the last months. Giuliani and Thompson have slipped while Huckabee and Romney have gained. The Dems, nationally have not changed, but Clinton is faltering in the early state polls while Obama continues to climb and Edwards appears the same and steady. For the GOP, Huckabee and Romney lead Iowa.
At USA Election Polls one could say Iowa is a statistical tie for each party. As most people know, Huckabee and Romney are a tie as well as Clinton and Obama are tied. Several delegate count listings have what one would expect based on national polls through the campaign to date. But when averages or proportional distribution of state delegates are considered the game changes dramatically.
If forced to pick only from the Democratic party offerings this blog would recommend Obama or Edwards. Only because they are not Clinton and are the only other Dems candidates with a chance to win. But then Biden, Dodd or Kucinich would not be selected here, under the conditions mentioned, or under any other circumstance. That would be why this blog would not vote for a Democrat in 2008. Oh, did Richardson get overlooked? Yes.
That brings it back to Mitt Romney. Romney possesses the attributes required to be successful. The criticism voiced about Romney may be more a matter of political gamesmanship and the strategy of rivals. Questions about his faith are a distraction. Questions about his positions may reflect a willingness to respond to the will of the electorate or the strength to do what is right on behalf of them. People do change their minds for good reason although it is popular in politics to highlight that fact as a flaw.
