In the book by Neville Shute, the war that devastated the world was begun with the bombing of the US and the UK by Egypt. The aircraft used were obtained from the USSR.
A little too close to the current state of the world for comfort, I think.
Walid Phares asks some pertinent questions about that Cairo speech, which all reasonable people should consider before proclaiming it to be "one of history's best":
1. Is the equation of mending relations between a nation state, America, and a whole civilization, Islam, rational? Is it academically sound to put one country and fifty two other countries in one framework of relationships? Are all 52 Muslim countries in one basket and America in another? Who framed this equation?
2. The speech mentioned "violent extremists" several times as the foe to contain and isolate. Is there not a clearer explanation of what is "violent extremism" and who are the followers of such a behavior? Is about violence only? Are all those who practice violence, from household abuse, gangsterism to mass murder part of one group? Of course not. So what constitutes extremism? Do "violent extremists" have an ideology, a platform, goals, strategies? Are they the Jihadists that the whole world knows about? Why wouldn't President Obama simply name them as such?
3. The speech argued that Americans were "traumatized" because of 9/11 and thus their view of Islam changed. Why would their view of a religion change because of an attack perpetrated by 19 hijackers? Who is drawing this conclusion? In short, if indeed Americans had a change in perception after 9/11, what was their perception before? Is this reality or is it the framing of the war of ideas by the apologist elite? Why is there a complex of guilt forced on Americans?
4. The speech argued directly and indirectly that the US government -- because of 9/11 -- did things it was not supposed to do constitutionally (or ethically). Among these breaches Mr. Obama mentioned the opening of Guantanamo. The question is: Is opening a detention center in a state of war (even not declared officially) in which active elements of the armed opponents are detained is an act aimed against an entire religion? Who said so and who framed it as such?
5. The speech delved in the claim that Islam "has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality." While it is perfectly legitimate for academics to engage in such research and draw the conclusions they wish, can an elected President in a liberal democracy make philosophical assertions in the field of controversial and debated conflicts -- not part of his or her national realm?
6. The speech -- rightly so -- praised the integration of Muslim-Americans in their own country. But did the President mention why a large number of American citizens fled many Muslim countries, including Muslim-American citizens?
7. The speech -- rightly so -- rejected stereotypes about Muslims and America. However who made these stereotypes, who propagated the narrative that they exist and who is indoctrinating segments of societies about the latter?
Some have praised Obama for the supposed "courage" he is showing by making a speech addressed to Muslims. Some have even suggested that he got in a few good points that the Muslim world needed to hear (e.g., his scolding about Holocaust denial). But I can't get something Wretchard wrote the other day out of my mind.
He was writing about about the former State Department official and his wife who were recently arrested for spying for Cuba, and in the comments section penned this gem:
What happened to root causes? The latest word is that Myers was from a very socially prominent family in DC. He had prestige, an education, money. The trust of his country. What was his beef? Nothing, at least, that can be explained through the “root causes” theory.
What makes people like Bill Ayers hate their own country? Marxism, at least in its upper reaches, is the exclusive preserve of what they call the bourgeosie, the petty bourgeosie, or the downright rich. You won’t find workers and peasants among the movers and the shakers of the Marxist nomenklatura, except the token ones. No. These are people who want for nothing tangible or even logically compelling. They aren’t out to tear apart the world for justice. They’re out to remake it in their own image. If Mr. Myers was a indeed a spy, he didn’t do it for money; nor even for any rational reason. He did it for vanity; because he saw himself as morally superior in his own mind. He felt entitled.
These are funny people who can betray people they’ve known and worked with; possibly send them to their deaths and yet expect to be praised for their higher morality. They are crazy in their own way, full of bizarre punctilio. Angry if you get an academic citation wrong; outraged if you choose the white wine with meat; apoplectic if you happen to like Kentucky Fried Chicken yet wholly devoid of the smallest iota of normal human kindness. Emotionally they are no different from the Nazis, who could listen to Bach and weep at Wagner while sending children to the gas chamber.
Early on I discovered they could kill, without compunction, pity or remorse. Indeed they could kill with the most astounding self-righteousness. Readers will remember the proof of God’s existence I gave to someone in the Party. God exists because the Devil exists; the Devil exists because Hell exists; Hell exists because there must someplace to put the leaders of the Party.
Obama and Ayers are cut from the same cloth. They want to implement this thing called "social justice"-- which is Marxist for the divine right of narcissists; and they even have convinced themselves that that this divine right give them some sort of ticket to claiming a "higher morality" and superiority over the rest of us.
Ayers was clearly willing to kill without compunction; he's still proud of this achievment today.
Do you imagine that Obama, who prefers not to get so down and dirty, and is willing to sacrifice entire nations, isn't? (think Israel, as just one example; or, think America) I suppose I should give him the benefit of the doubt since he is POTUS, but so far pretty much everything he says turns out to be unsaid by next day; and every speech he gives is entirey self-referential. I'm afraid that I simply am unable to trust him to act in the best interests of anyone but himself.
Next time you listen to one of his glib, hypnotic speeches that give everybody something and everybody nothing at the same time, pay attention to what he doesn't say.
The adoring editor of Newsweek thinks Obama is a god. But if he isn't--and the chances are pretty much zero that he is-- then he may well turn out to be that elusive proof of God's existence that Wretchard was talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.