Wednesday, June 23, 2010

America's War Monger

The God of this universe was not kidding around when he stated the following in Genesis 12:3 regarding his people Israel:

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse."

When it comes to Israel, President Obama is a warmonger; he has done nothing but push aggressively against the Jewish nation, and he is beginning to reap the consequences of his actions as everything is falling apart all around him. Let's see: the Gulf oil disaster, the Arizona immigration bill, the faltering economy, the war in Afghanistan, terror attacks on American soil, accusations of incompetence. Need I go on?

Read about the nation for which Obama is not hesistant to go to war against, via Israel Matzav:

Obama and the war against Israel

"David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin have a huge two-part article at NRO in which they dissect President Obama's 'war against Israel' (as they call it). The first part is here and the second part is here (I actually got a link in the second part - thanks). The argument is 'If President Obama had been trying to undermine Israel’s security — and ours — he could hardly have done a better job.' I really urge you to read the whole thing. Here are some highlights from Part I:


'Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab states have conducted three unprovoked, aggressive conventional wars against it, along with a continuous terrorist war that began in 1949. Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state.

...

The Prophet Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, and consequently Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. Today even Islamists regard it as only the third-holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It was never the capital of any Arab state. Indeed, for centuries, Jerusalem was a forgotten city to most Arabs, and it was allowed to fall into ruin under Ottoman rule, which lasted until the creation of Israel and Jordan in the aftermath of the First World War. On a trip to Jerusalem in 1867, Mark Twain lamented that the city “has lost all its grandeur, and is become a pauper village.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it was treated like a backwater. Only one Arab leader, Morocco’s King Hassan, cared enough to pay a visit to the city that Muslims who are involved in the jihad against Israel now suggest is an essential part of their history.

...

In April 2009, he visited Turkey, a NATO ally that was rapidly — and alarmingly — becoming an Islamist state. Addressing its parliament, he hailed Turkey as a “true partner” and suggested that it was the United States that had been the faithless friend. In a not-so-oblique attack on President Bush, Obama expressed his regret for the “difficulties of these last few years,” referring to a strain in relations caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil during the war in Iraq. Obama lamented that the “trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims.

...

Even more worrisome, Obama used the occasion of his Turkish visit to break with the U.S. policy of treating countries that harbor terrorists as hostile nations. President Bush had declared that there would be no room for neutrality in the war against terror: “You are either with us or against us.” But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”

...

Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.

Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.'"

Read it all.

1 comments:

Diogenes said...

You know, the first rule when quoting someone else is to accurately quote them. And, if you're going to make brad sweeping assertions, it pays to not go too overboard, lest somebody notice the hyperbole. This writer doesn't pass the smell test on either count.

First off:

"Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state." REALLY? I'm not any sort of expert on U.N. history, but when anyone claims that there hasn't been a single resolution against any Arab state in almost five decades, alarm bells start ringing. Weren't there just a few U.N. condemnations against Iraq in the lead-up to Bush's invasion? Or did Georgie lie about them, too? This is one of the few cases where I believe Bushie's right; there were condemnations of Iraq, for sure, and probably others, if one cared to look.

Now, as for Obama's comments in Turkey in April 2009. Here's the link to Obama's actual comments, if you care to read them instead of the misquoted and paraphrased gibberish posted by Ms. MoreLies:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Obama-To-The-Turkish-Parliament

Now, for the post's inaccuracies:

"In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims." The invasion of Iraqin 2003 was a lot of things, but it surely was NOT America supporting "the" Muslim citizens of Iraq. At best, you might argue that America supported one group of Iraqi Muslims (the Shi'ites) against another group of Iraqi Muslims (the Sunnis). But the basis of our war in Iraq wasn't about the Muslim religion. Busie even conceded that:

"I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction."

Next...

"But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”

But, alas, that is NOT what Obama said. here's what he said:

"I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, JUST be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country."

So, in other words, Obama's statement is just the opposite of what this rightwingnut blogger claimed. Rather than teling Arab countries that they could maintain good relations with both al-Qaeda AND the United States, Obama said that JUST opposing al-Qaeda isn't enough; the U.S. and Arab countries had to look for MORE than that one commonality of interest.

It's one thing to disagree with a President's foreign policy. But, if you're going to do that, at least be honest and accurate in your criticisms.