Hagel denies Armenian genocide

January 14, 2013

Armenian-American leaders and human rights advocates have expressed deep reservations about the nomination of Chuck Hagel to lead the defense department.
Hagel, a two-term Republican senator from Nebraska, was nominated Monday as President Barack Obama’s pick to head the Pentagon. He faces criticism for opposing a 2005 congressional resolution recognizing Turkey’s genocide of more than one million Armenians.
“What happened in 1915 happened in 1915,” Hagel said during a 2005 trip to Armenia when he was serving in the Senate. “As one United States senator, I think the better way to deal with this is to leave it open to historians and others to decide what happened and why.”
“The fact is that this region needs to move forward,” Hagel continued. “We need to find a lasting, just peace between Turkey and Armenia and the other nations of this region. I am not sure that by going back and dealing with that in some way that causes one side or the other to be put in difficult spot, helps move the peace process forward.”
Armenian-American leaders and genocide experts decried these comments as insensitive and dangerous. They maintain that Hagel’s willingness to overlook the systematic genocide of more than one million people raises concerns about his possible tenure as the nation’s top defense official.
“Senator Hagel’s remarks from 2005 ignore a proud chapter in U.S. history during which America’s diplomatic community played an important role denouncing human rights violations and setting an example of humanitarian assistance on behalf of a people at risk,” said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the nonpartisan Armenian Assembly of America. (more)

you can’t say Hagel has not been consistent in his loyalties. It would be interesting now that Turkey has a proxy war with Iran in Syria where his bias would leave him. I really don’t want to find this out however.


Genocide Watch Issues Alert: South Africa In Early Stages Of White Genocide

July 29, 2012

World’s top genocide expert and founder of Genocide Watch, Prof. Gregory Stanton, visits South Africa to investigate violence against whites (Afrikaners). He warns them at a press conference on July 26 2012: “Don’t give up your guns.”
“UN’s Francis Deng has been informed; and I will also inform Samantha Power, head of the US Atrocities Prevention Board, as well as the FBI’S Genocide Prevention Unit upon my return.” – Prof. Gregory Stanton, World’s Top Genocide expert, founder Genocide Watch

July 26, 2012, 11am PRETORIA – Press conference by Prof Gregory Stanton of Genocide Watch US in South Africa: as reported by dr Dan Roodt of the Pro-Afrikaans-Action-Group:
– Stanton said he was on a fact-finding mission regarding the extraordinarily high numbers of cruelty displayed during attacks and murders against white farmers, their families and workers; and also interviewed community leaders about the widespread anti-Afrikaner discrimination and hatespeech emanating from the ANC-regime.

“Genocide Watch had raised South Africa to level 6 when Malema was singing Kill the Boer song’. And now SA president Jacob Zuma is also singing it.”
He said at the start of his press conference that he had tried to get interviews with ANC-leaders specifically to discuss the hatespeech issue surround the Kill the Boer song. He was refused access. “I would have dearly loved to have spoken to them’; he said at the well-attended press conference at the Transvaal Agricultural Union’s headquarters in Silverton, Pretoria.

“We at Genocide Watch have enough suspicion that there may be an organised effort at a genocide in South Africa, and we will continue to monitor the situation closely’.
“Desecration of bodies in SA also happened in Rwanda and Burundi”, he said — adding that he would be meeting the US Minister of Council today to inform them of the situation in South Africa”. He had spoken to many Afrikaners from all walks of life and is returning with hitherto-unknown details about atrocities.
“You only need a small group to carry out a full-blown genocide. When I talked about the 8 stages of genocide, some of the early stages are precursors to genocide’.
“The SA farm murders should become ‘a priority crime’ for the South African government, and that they had to try their very best to try and stop them.
Many of the Afrikaners present also asked him exactly what genocide entailed. He explained that for instance, ‘if the government took away your children and prevented you from speaking Afrikaans to them, it is a genocide act. “And driving people out of their territory is also another form of genocide.’ Also: “Killing members of a group, even 3,000, could constitute a genocide.’
Asked by Edwin Leemans of the Boereleed Institute whether the ANC-leaders could be taken to the International criminal court in the Hague to be tried, he replied “South Africa is a state-party to the Rome Statute. Policians could be tried in The Hague regarding their inflammatory speech towards Afrikaners.’
Stanton said he had spoken to community leaders and crime-victims during his fact-finding tour in South Africa.
‘Francis Deng of the United Nations has also taken notice of what is happening in South Africa to the Afrikaners.” He also undertook to take all the information he had gathered on his fact-finding tour in South Africa to Samantha Power, head of the US Atrocities Prevention Board, as well as to the FBI’S Genocide Prevention Unit.
He did not express any political views – for instance regarding the rights of Afrikaners to self-determination – as posed by Cor Ehlers.
And one Afrikaner at the press conference challenged Stanton, saying he was ‘skeptic’ about Stanton’s claims: Johan Burger of the Institute for Security Studies and a former SA Police Commissioner, asked: “what is the factual basis for the assumptions we are making’? Stanton explained that similar incredulity was seen in Europe and the USA regarding reports about any pending Afrikaner genocide.
“The godlike status of Mandela is like that of Martin Luther King or Ghandi. We now know they were not perfect. Nevertheless, as long as Mandela is alive, Europe and the US will not believe the situation in which Afrikaners now find themselves in South Africa.”
He expressed the hope that ‘war would never happen in South Africa: that you will be able to fight back against the communist ideology’. He also urged the Afrikaners to ‘fight back using the courts and the policing system, and ‘for God’s sake don’t ever give up your guns, despite the gun laws.’
End
About Gregory Stanton: Gregory H. Stanton is the Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at George Mason University in Fairfax County, Virginia, United States. He is the best known for his work in the area of genocide studies. He is the founder (1999) and president of Genocide Watch, the founder (1981) and director of the Cambodian Genocide Project, and the founder (1999) and Chair of the International Campaign to End Genocide. From 2007 to 2009 he was the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars.
Stanton comes from the lineage of women’s suffrage activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Henry Brewster Stanton, an anti-slavery leader. He worked as a voting rights worker in Mississippi, a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Ivory Coast, and as Church World Service/CARE Field Director in Cambodia in 1980.
Stanton is Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia. From 2003 to 2009 he was the James Farmer Professor in Human Rights at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. He has been a Law Professor at Washington and Lee University, American University, and the University of Swaziland. He has degrees from Oberlin College, Harvard Divinity School, Yale Law School, and a Doctorate in Cultural Anthropology from the University of Chicago. He was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2001–2002).
Stanton served in the State Department (1992–1999), where he drafted the United Nations Security Council resolutions that created the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Burundi Commission of Inquiry, and the Central African Arms Flow Commission. He also drafted the U.N. Peacekeeping Operations resolutions that helped bring about an end to the Mozambique civil war. In 1994, Stanton won the American Foreign Service Association’s prestigious W. Averell Harriman award for “extraordinary contributions to the practice of diplomacy exemplifying intellectual courage,” based on his dissent from U.S. policy on the Rwandan genocide. He wrote the State Department options paper on ways to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice in Cambodia.
In 1999 Stanton founded Genocide Watch. From 1999 to 2000, he also served as Co-Chair of the Washington Working Group for the International Criminal Court. Genocide Watch is the Chair and Coordinator of the International Campaign to End Genocide, which includes 30 organizations in 11 countries, including the Minority Rights Group, the International Crisis Group, the Aegis Trust, Survival International, and the Genocide Intervention Network.
Before he joined the State Department, Stanton was a legal advisor to RUKH, the Ukrainian independence movement, work for which he was named the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America’s 1992 Man of the Year. He was the Chair of the American Bar Association Young Lawyer’s Division Committee on Human Rights and a member of the A.B.A.’s Standing Committee on World Order Under Law.
In 2007, Stanton was elected President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, to serve until 2009.

Another Multicultural Failure. Is freedom allowing people who want to kill you to live with you?


America’s One Child Policy

August 29, 2011

.fullpost { display: inline; } Vice President Joe Biden, Commissar of the Cracked Head Club, visited China and voiced his understanding of China’s One Child Policy. The part that he understood was the forced abortions and the eugenics of baby girls. The part that he didn’t understand was how the Chinese government expects one breadwinner to support four retirees. But as usual Biden had it backward.

The Chinese government isn’t worried about how retirees will be supported, because they have no investment in them. They’ll receive whatever social benefits are doled out, and that’s it. China’s brutal pragmatism and lack of democracy makes rationing health care and anything else easy. Massive rallies and protests happen all the time in the People’s Republic, unreported by the media, and are ignored by the authorities. Tienanmen Square showed the limits of popular protest in creating political change. It’s a lesson that neither the leadership nor the people have forgotten. Biden should have really been asking his question in Washington D.C. While America has no official one child policy, it has promoted a shift from family savings and support, to a government supervised safety net. Taxes have gone up, the single income family has become rarer and birth rates have dropped. Marriage and children have become more expensive, the former has dropped at a staggering rate among lower income families, and the latter has gone up leading to large numbers of single parents.

The modern state has all for intents and purposes tried to replace the family, providing an expensive cradle to grave social support network. A network that favors those most who work the least.

The government replaces fathers, mothers and children. Children are cared for by the government. So are their elderly parents. The utility of having children diminishes. And the entire system is funded by higher taxes and economic gimmicks that decrease jobs and diminish buying power which lowers the number of self-supporting families, and lowers birth rates in general and especially among the productive working class who usually provide the biological base for population expansion.

Boosting tax revenues means rewarding spenders over savers, which leads to a consumeristic society that drives even more people into the social welfare system. And even those who stay out of it and try to save, are operating in a system whose monetary policy and programs are set against them. The short term tax revenue gains and monetary policy gimmicks lead to much larger problem as again they create more dependency as everyone is forced into relying on the government social safety net.

Birth rate is the engine behind the social safety net. If the birth rate falls, then even when practiced with the best intentions, the whole system becomes a massive Ponzi scheme. But how do you keep the birth rate high when taxes are high, higher education has become mandatory and a consumer society teaches people to reward themselves now, instead of deferring instant gratification until later?

And without a high birth rate, a major revenue gap opens up. If solvent long term funds were used to prepare for the gap, then the day of disaster could be delayed. But the same political elite that created the problem is also guilty of uncontrollably spending all those funds, and then holding out their hand for more.

In Europe, one answer has been more government subsidies for children. A typical statist solution that tries to use the unacknowledged source of the problem to create incentives to bypass its consequences. While subsidies can marginally increase birth rates, they do not address the real problem.

Taking away people’s money and then paying them to go shopping in order to stimulate the economy is common enough in the United States. And it never works. You can’t restore a healthy economy with subsidies and you can’t restore a healthy birth rate with some social benefits. It’s not just about the money, it’s also about the culture that was created by those policies. A post-family culture.

So the other Western solution is to import immigrants from a different culture with high birth rates. Europe has all but destroyed itself with that approach, and America is speedily following along. Sure, the total birth rate numbers look good, and no one is supposed to care how many European countries are set to be Muslim by 2100.

But the economics of it still don’t work because social utilization goes up drastically to pay for all those extra children, many of whom will never work legally, others who will take far more out of the economy than they will ever put back in. The cost of trying and then imprisoning a single criminal for a year is staggering. Those rapes, murders and drug deals don’t just have a human cost– they have a shocking economic toll. And throw in a major riot like in London and the economic damage adds up to the loss of entire major cities.

And there we are back again to Europe set for a Muslim majority, and America set for a Hispanic majority, and both are going completely bankrupt anyway.

Chinese leaders could have pointed all this out to Biden, but they find it easier to let our civilizations collapse in their own time, while the Century of China gets underway. China may never make it, its own economy is parasitically interlinked with ours and its centrally planned economics and social unrest will probably take it down before 2050. This would be nothing new for China which has gone down this way before. And dynasty or party, it has never really learned from its mistakes.

And Europe arguably has never learned from the mistakes of the Roman Empire, instead again overreaching its conquests, outsourcing its defense, showing weakness at the worst possible time, opening cities to barbarians and engaging in absolute folly in a crisis have been repeated. And the United States is following along.

Peering at the world through the spyglass of history, it would seem as if every people are repeating their old errors again. The State of Israel looks a lot like the latter days of its kingdoms, placing its faith in an untrustworthy power, Egypt and Rome, and allowing itself to be led to disaster by internal division and treason. The Muslim world is aching to revive the Caliphate with the same end results, cultural decay and collapse.

It’s astounding that no one has learned anything in thousands of years except how to make a better smartphone. We can put people on the moon and make dinner in five minutes, but we can’t stop destroying ourselves in cycle after cycle of history while finding creative ways to justify our suicides.

America doesn’t need a One Child Policy, but it has one anyway that punishes childbirth among productive populations and rewards it among unproductive populations. That leads to a division of lower income populations into a working class and a welfare class. With the working class supporting the welfare class. Marriage is down among both classes. It’s too expensive for the working class and too unnecessary for the welfare class. Why bother getting married when the local aid office is already your husband, wife and parents combined? The more children you have, the more the government takes care of you.

If China’s One Child Policy is a moral horror, the Western One Child Policy is an economic and social horror that has already destroyed major European and American cities. And it’s just getting started.

The left’s fear and loathing of Western self-perpetuation translates into shrill agitation for population control. Which means more tax penalized one child or no child families in the West alongside ten child Bangladeshi families living off social welfare since tax penalties can’t be expected to apply to people who don’t pay taxes.

The countries worried about population growth have too little of it, and the countries that aren’t worried about it have too much of it. Globalists dream of some UN administered worldwide population scheme, but if no major country was willing to turn over its nuclear weapons to the UN, how likely is it that they’ll turn over their babies?

Ted Turner has praised China’s One Child policy and suggested that tax penalties could be used to dissuade large families, along with Cap and Trade for babies to allow those families or countries who don’t have children to sell their childbearing rights to more fertile people and places.

Turner’s plan would allow Europe to sell its child credits to Africa, but how would Africa afford it? China would have an entirely new export in baby credits, but the main countries buying it wouldn’t be able to pay for it either. There’s something ghoulish about such talk of trading unborn babies between the continents, aborted Western and Chinese babies being sold as credits to create new babies in countries subsidized by Western aid.

But we’re trading enough live babies already. There is a booming trade in Chinese and African babies being adopted by Western couples. As with other Western industries, the manufacturing is outsourced to China, while the Western consumer overpays for a product that seems convenient in the short term, but is highly injurious to him and his society in the long term.

The consequences of using the Third World as a baby manufacturing factory, through immigration or adoption, are the end of the First World. You can outsource your energy production to countries that hate you and finance a way of global terrorism. You can outsource your manufacturing and industry to countries that hate you and lose much of your economy and gain a powerful new enemy. But when you outsource your population replacement to peoples that hate you– then you’re gone.

A country can survive anything but its own self-inflicted genocide. And low birth rates combined with population replacement amount to that. Suicidal genocide by a civilization that no longer thinks there’s any reason to go on.

The West has subsidized population booms in the Third World with its medicine and its aid. Now it’s subsidizing its own population replacement by them. Uncle Sam, John Bull and Madam Liberty are sitting in a skyscraper somewhere with pistols to their heads, cheerfully making plans for their farewell parties. The parties will have a very diverse invitation list. And the evening will end with the suicide of the cultures that contributed so much to the world in the last 500 years.

But the fecklessness of Western liberals and liberalized conservatives may stem their self-inflicted suicide. Before the populations are wiped out, the economies will be.

America and Europe are coming up against the impossibility of maintaining their governments and their economies at the same time. They will have to choose one or the other, and whichever choice they make will leave their countries much less attractive to immigrants.

Either the end of the social safety net or the end of economic growth will significantly reduce rates of immigration and even lead to the exit of some immigrants. It’s already happening in America just on the current unemployment rates alone. A complete economic collapse would dramatically reverse the number of opportunistic immigrants who come for profits, rather than for freedoms. But this isn’t any kind of solution, it’s more like a suicide realizing that he can’t hang himself and jump into the water at the same time. He’ll have to choose one or the other.

But drowning a dog to kill the fleas on it is no answer. Even if you reduce the number of fleas, the dog is still dead. And it’s not clear if the dog can be revived again. The Russian people have never recovered from the damage done to them by Communism. Neither have their birth rates. America isn’t as badly off– but many European countries may have passed the point of return. The easiest way to tell may be to see which countries have an active political movement dedicated to national survival and which don’t.

The 2012 election looks set to come down to a contest between a candidate who favors open borders and economic growth– and a candidate who favors open borders and big government. Lucky us. We’ll get to choose between a man who still wants us to have hope and faith in being able to hang ourselves and jump in the lake at the same time– and a man who believes the future lies in jumping into the Rio Grande and lowering taxes. As they say north of the border, Dios Bendice a Estados Undisos Mexicanos.

Not that it matters. The fleas aren’t killing the dog, they’re feeding off its self-inflicted wounds. And the wounds are economic and cultural. Japan kept out immigrants, but its low birth rate and falling marriage rate, under the shadow of a big government maintained recession puts it in the same club as the rest of the First World It may avoid filling its cities with Third Worlders doing manual labor and low level crime, and instead replace them with robots, but it’s still on the path to extinction.

Meanwhile back in China, the Commissar of the Cracked Head Club, was explaining to his hosts who were trying to stifle their laughter, how unsustainable their system is.

“Poor dumb bastard,” they think, “doesn’t he understand that this is what drives our competitiveness. That Chinese parents push their child even harder to succeed when he is their sole source of support?

But how could Biden understand, what government control, estate taxes and the death of the family have robbed America of? Chinese families may have only one child, or two, but they still think in the long term. That child is their future. But Biden’s own party is barely capable of thinking two weeks ahead. His opposition is hardly much better. Show me a Republican with a long term plan for the country, and I’ll show you an unelectable candidate. Show me a Republican with short term solutions that ignore long term problems– and I’ll call him, Mr. President.

Having children is about thinking of the future. Cultures that stop thinking of the future, that cannot imagine the world going on after they die, find innovative ways to commit suicidal genocide. The left is right that having children is not selfless, it’s long term selfishness. It’s our willful desire to keep our blood and our people around on the planet long after we’re gone.

Long term selfishness like that built this country. It built a lot of countries. It raised industries out of the ground and covered the continent with people. But when a culture loses its sense of long term selfishness, what replaces it is a short attention span and instant gratification. And as the economic reasons for having children vanish, and so does the structure of the family, the reasons for having children diminish. The biological need is replaced by housepets and casual sex.

China’s competitiveness is personal, but it transcends the personal. Its leaders are venal, greedy and amoral– but they also think of the future. American competitiveness is personal. It doesn’t look to the future. Our companies are satisfied with making short term gains. Our politicians look for short term successes. Our culture seeks only to lock in the benefits of the present, while China sacrifices the present for the future. It does so in brutal and ugly ways, but you don’t have to fight a duel nicely to win. You just have to play to win.

Children are the staying power of a nation. They are its long term projection into the future. When a nation does not think of the future, then it has no children and when a nation has no children, then it has no future.
Sultan Knish


Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?

August 6, 2011
The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is often characterized as “genocide” and has all but become emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance. God told Moses:

But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite — just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God. So Joshua [Moses’ successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord, God of Israel had commanded.

…God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur’an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur’anic verses, better known as the “sword-verses”:

Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way.
Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

….MORE
Summer 2009 |
Middle East Quarterly,
Volume XVI: Number 3, pp. 3-12 |
by Raymond Ibrahim
and image via wilybadger.wordpress.com

Free Palestine is CODE for KILL THE JEWS!

June 9, 2011

The ferocity of the purge in which they were subsequently purged was such that the word “purge” doesn’t really convey it. Imagine pigbreathed men wandering blindfolded through the crowd at a Coldplay concert, swinging chainsaws, flamethrowers and yetis about in a random but deadly fashion, and you’re getting close.

(LISTEN)

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

…… ….. ….. ..

and yet a CNN Poll Shows Highest Support for Israel; Lowest for Palestinians in History

The Blind Accordion Player (Ben Shahn)

Those who survived were a red-eyed phalanx of psychos who snorted vodka, smoked trees, dammed rivers with human heads, played Poland like an accordion and parked their tanks on top of Hitler’s house. Not pretty, but more effective at getting rid of Nazis than Futurist poetry, innovative camera techniques and endless speccy speeches. via alfanalf.blogspot.com

CNN Poll Shows Highest Support for Israel; Lowest for Palestinians in History

June 5, 2011
According to a new CNN Poll Americans sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians by 67 to 16%.
that dressed that way in a “Palestine”
is not the most advisable way to go about? 
And [the Pro Palestinian] fellow
just above would also be
very unhappy with that cleavage.
via myrightword.blogspot.com


Free Palestine is CODE for KILL THE JEWS!

Media_httpwwwbackseat_agfjd

It’s the Coalition Of The Dumb
and all the usual suspects are here –
Mark Thomas,
ultra-Marxist alleged ‘comedian’,
anti-Semitic fake charity lefties War on Want,
together with a host of nonentities
from the music business,
and, ahem, Coldplay:


…The ferocity of the purge
in which they were subsequently
purged was such that the word “purge”
doesn’t really convey it.
Imagine pigbreathed men
wandering blindfolded through
the crowd at a Coldplay concert,
swinging chainsaws, flamethrowers and yetis
about in a random but deadly fashion,
and you’re getting close.






Sympathy with Israel is up from 60% in 2009. While 65% says the U.S. should not take either side in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, 35% say the U.S. should take Israel’s side while just 1% favors backing the Palestinians.

Leave a Comment » | BDS, CNN, Coldplay, fashion, Genocide, PALESTINE, Zionism | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Obama’s altruistic foreign policy

April 22, 2011


If only in the interest of intellectual hygiene, it would be refreshing if the Obama administration would stop ascribing moral impetuses to its foreign policy.
Today, US forces are engaged in a slowly escalating war on behalf of al-Qaida penetrated antiregime forces in Libya. It is difficult to know the significance of al-Qaida’s role in the opposition forces because to date, the self-proclaimed rebel government has only disclosed 10 of its 31 members.
Indeed, according to The New York Times, the NATO-backed opposition to dictator Muammar Gaddafi is so disorganized that it cannot even agree about who the commander of its forces is.
And yet, despite the fact that the Obama administration has no clear notion of who is leading the fight against Gaddafi or what they stand for, this week the White House informed Congress that it will begin directly funding the al-Qaida-linked rebels, starting with $25 million in non-lethal material. This aid, like the NATO no-fly zone preventing Gaddafi from using his air force, and the British military trainers now being deployed to Libya to teach the rebels to fight, will probably end up serving no greater end then prolonging the current stalemate. With the Obama administration unwilling to enforce the no-fly zone with US combat aircraft, unwilling to take action to depose Gaddafi and unwilling to cultivate responsible, pro-Western successors to Gaddafi, the angry tyrant will probably remain in power indefinitely.
In and of itself, the fact that the war has already reached a stalemate constitutes a complete failure of the administration’s stated aim of protecting innocent Libyan civilians from slaughter.
Not only are both the regime forces and the rebel forces killing civilians daily. Due to both sides’ willingness to use civilians as human shields, NATO forces unable to differentiate between fighters and civilians and so they too are killing their share of civilians.
In deciding in favor of military intervention on the basis of a transnational legal doctrine never accepted as law by the US Congress called “responsibility to protect,” President Barack Obama was reportedly swayed by the arguments of his senior national security adviser Samantha Power. Over the past 15 years, Power has fashioned herself into a celebrity policy wonk by cultivating a public persona of herself as a woman moved by the desire to prevent genocide. In a profile of Power in the current issue of the National Journal, Jacob Heilbrunn explains, “Power is not just an advocate for human rights. She is an outspoken crusader against genocide…”
Heilbrunn writes that Power’s influence over Obama and her celebrity status has made her the leader of a new US foreign policy elite. “This elite,” he writes, “is united by a shared belief that American foreign policy must be fundamentally transformed from an obsession with national interests into a broader agenda that seeks justice for women and minorities, and promotes democracy whenever and wherever it can — at the point of a cruise missile if necessary.”
As the prolonged slaughter in Libya and expected continued failure of the NATO mission make clear, Power and her new foreign policy elite have so far distinguished themselves mainly by their gross incompetence.
But then, even if the Libyan mission were crowned in success, it wouldn’t make the moral pretentions of the US adventure there any less disingenuous. And this is not simply because the administration-backed rebels include al-Qaida fighters.
The fact is that the moral arguments used for intervening militarily on behalf of Gaddafi’s opposition pale in comparison to the moral arguments for intervening in multiple conflicts where the Obama administration refuses to lift a finger. At a minimum, this moral inconsistency renders it impossible for the Obama administration to credibly embrace the mantel of moral actor on the world stage.
Consider the administration’s Afghanistan policy.
Over the past week, the White House and the State Department have both acknowledged that administration officials are conducting negotiations with the Taliban.
Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defended the administration’s policy. During a memorial service for the late ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who at the time of his death last December was the most outspoken administration figure advocating engaging Mullah Omar and his followers, Clinton said, “Those who found negotiations with the Taliban distasteful got a very powerful response from Richard – diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends.”
Of course, the Taliban are not simply not America’s friends. They are the enemy of every good and decent human impulse. The US went to war against the Taliban in 2001 because the Bush administration rightly held them accountable for Osama bin Laden and his terror army which the Taliban sponsored, hosted and sheltered on its territory.
But the Taliban are America’s enemy not just because they bear responsibility for the September 11 attacks on the US. They are the enemy of the US because they are evil monsters.
Apparently, the supposedly moral, anti-genocidal, pro-women Obama administration needs to be reminded why it is not merely distasteful but immoral to engage the Taliban. So here it goes.
Under the Taliban, the women and girls of Afghanistan were the most oppressed, most terrorized, most endangered group of people in the world. Women and girls were denied every single human right. They were effectively prisoners in their homes, allowed on the streets only when fully covered and escorted by a male relative.
They were denied the right to education, work and medical care. Women who failed to abide in full by these merciless rules were beaten, imprisoned, tortured, and stoned to death.
The Taliban’s barbaric treatment of women and girls probably couldn’t have justified their overthrow at the hands of the US military. But it certainly justified the US’s refusal to even consider treating them like legitimate political actors in the 10 years since NATO forces first arrived in Afghanistan. And yet, the self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden in the administration are doing the morally unjustifiable. They are negotiating, and so legitimizing the most diabolical sexual tyranny known to man. Obama, Clinton, Power and their colleagues are now shamelessly advancing a policy that increases the likelihood that the Taliban will again rise to power and enslave Afghanistan’s women and girls once more.
Then there is Syria. In acts of stunning courage, despite massive regime violence that has killed approximately two hundred people in three weeks, anti-regime protesters in Syria are not standing down. Instead, they are consistently escalating their protests. They have promised that the demonstrations after Friday prayers this week will dwarf the already unprecedented country-wide protests we have seen to date.
In the midst of the Syrian demonstrators’ calls for freedom from one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, the Obama administration has sided with their murderous dictator Bashar Assad, referring to him as a “reformer.”
As Heibrunn notes in his profile of Power, she and her colleagues find concerns about US national interests parochial at best and immoral at worst. Her clear aim — and that of her boss – has been to separate US foreign policy from US interests by tethering it to transnational organizations like the UN.
Given the administration’s contempt for policy based on US national interests, it would be too much to expect the White House to notice that Syria’s Assad regime is one of the greatest state supporters of terrorism in the world and that its overthrow would be a body blow to Iran, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida and therefore a boon for US national security.
In theory, the Syrian opposition presents the likes of Obama and Power with what ought to be a serious moral dilemma. First, they seem to fit the precise definition of the sort of people that the transnationalists have a responsibility to protect.
They are being gunned down by the dozen as they march with olive branches and demand change they can believe in. Moreover, their plan for ousting Assad involves subordinating him to the transnationalists at the UN.
According to a report last week in The Washington Times, Washington-based representatives of several Syrian opposition groups have asked the administration to do three things in support of the opposition, all of which are consonant with the administration’s own oft stated foreign policy preferences.
They have requested that Obama condemn the regime’s murderous actions in front of television cameras. They have asked the administration to initiate an investigation of Assad’s murderous response to the demonstrations at the UN Human Rights Council. And they have asked the administration to enact unilateral sanctions against a few Syrian leaders who have given troops the orders to kill the protesters.
The administration has not responded to the request to act against Assad at the UN Human Rights Council. It has refused the opposition’s other two requests.
These responses are no surprise in light of the Obama administration’s abject and consistent refusal to take any steps that could help Iran’s pro-democracy, pro-women’s rights, pro-Western opposition Green Movement in its nearly two-year-old struggle to overthrow the nuclear proliferating, terror-supporting, genocide-inciting, elections-stealing mullocracy.
Power’s personal contribution to the shocking moral failings of the administration’s foreign policy is of a piece with her known hostility towards Israel. That hostility, which involves a moral inversion of the reality of the Palestinian war against Israel, was most graphically exposed in a 2002 interview. Then, at the height of the Palestinian terror war against Israel, when Palestinian terrorists from Hamas and Fatah alike were carrying out daily attacks whose clear aim was the massacre of as many Israeli civilians as possible simply because they were Israelis, Power said in a filmed interview that she supported deploying a “mammoth” US military force to Israel to protect the Palestinians from the IDF.
In periodic attempts to convince credulous pro-Israel writers that she doesn’t actually support invading Israel, Power has claimed that her statements calling for just such an invasion and additional remarks in which she blamed American Jews for US support of Israel were inexplicable lapses of judgment.
But then there have been so many lapses in judgment in her behavior and in the actions of the administration she serves that it is hard to see where the lapses begin and the judgment ends. Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and Israel are only the tip of the iceberg. Everywhere from Honduras to Venezuela, from Britain to Russia, from Colombia to Cuba, Japan to China, Egypt to Lebanon, to Poland and the Czech Republic and beyond, those lapses in judgment are informing policies that place the US consistently on the side of aggressors against their victims.
Back in the pre-Obama days, when US foreign policy was supposed to serve US interests, it would have mattered that these policies all weaken the US and its allies and empower its foes. But now, in the era of the purely altruistic Obama administration, none of that matters.
What does matter is that the purely altruistic Obama foreign policy is empowering genocidal, misogynist, bigoted tyrants worldwide.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Posted via email from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Leave a Comment » | al-Qaeda, Genocide, George W. Bush, Islam Vs. Feminism, Libya, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi, Mullah Omar, Muslim Brotherhood, NATO, Richard Holbrooke, Samantha_Power, Taliban | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon