To fully grasp President Obama’s see-no-Palestinian-evil response to the fatal terror bombing in Jerusalem, it’s worth looking carefully at his official statement. Here are his comments in full:
“I condemn in the strongest possible terms the bombing in Jerusalem today, as well as the rockets and mortars fired from Gaza in recent days. Together with the American people, I offer my deepest condolences for those injured or killed. There is never any possible justification for terrorism. The United States calls on the groups responsible to end these attacks at once and we underscore that Israel, like all nations, has a right to self-defense. We also express our deepest condolences for the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza yesterday. We stress the importance of calm and urge all parties to do everything in their power to prevent further violence and civilian casualties.”
For starters, note that Obama never points out that this was a “Palestinian” terror attack and that these are “Palestinians” in “Hamas-ruled” Gaza who have been firing rockets and mortars in recent days. In the president’s antiseptic view, there just was a bomb of unknown provenance that suddenly exploded in Jerusalem. Not a word about Palestinian culpability or that Gaza is under the rule of Hamas as Iran’s proxy. No “Palestinian” fingerprints. No “Hamas” fingerprints.Regarding the fatal bomb explosion in Jerusalem, Obama condemns “the bombing” — but not the bomber. As for fire directed at southern Israel from Gaza, he condemns “the rockets and mortars” — not the Palestinian groups which do the actual firing, or Iran which supplies them with such weaponry.
Moving on, It’s fine for Obama to say there is never any justification for terrorism. But neither is there any justification for ignoring the source of this particular terrorism
Obama again tiptoes around the plain fact that this was a Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians when he calls on “the groups responsible” to end such attacks. Which groups? Hamas and Islamic Jihad have been pelting Israel with some 60 rocket and mortar attacks in the last four days. Why throw a cloak of anonymity around them? And could the Jerusalem bomber have been inspired by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’s incessant anti-Israel incitement campaign, including serial glorifications of suicide bombers? Shouldn’t Obama, at a minimum, have called on Abbas to end such incitement?
The president, in his statement, extends “deepest condolences” for both victims of the Jerusalem bombing and for the deaths of Palestinian civilians a day earlier. That’s playing the all too familiar, but totally misplaced, equivalence game. What Obama fails to point out is that the Jerusalem bombing was deliberately aimed to injure and kill as many civilians as possible, whereas there was no such intent the day before when the IDF, responding to rocket and mortar attacks from a grove, accidentally hit these Palestinian civilians next to the grove.
There is a moral difference between Hamas’ use of Palestinian civilians as “human shields” when directing rocket attacks against Israel, and the IDF going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.
So, Obama ends his statement by urging “all parties to do everything in their power to prevent further violence and civilian casualties.” Again, the equivalence game. As far as Obama is concerned, Palestinian terrorists and Israel have equal responsibility to end the mayhem. Obama obviously doesn’t get it. It’s not Israel that has racheted up violent attacks in recent days and weeks. It’s Palestinians. If they would stop, the violence would end. Obama needed to point the finger at the real culprits. He didn’t.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/obamas_fatuous_statement_on_te.html at March 23, 2011 – 05:34:40 PM CDT
Your “Iran crosses into Iraq to hit bombing suspects” is mainly of any interests because it features a term rarely found in AP reports. The rarity: “terrorists”!
For bands of murderers as Iran-sponsored Hamas or Hezbollah, AP always employs euphemisms as activists, combatants, commandos, fighters, freedom fighters, militants, resistance fighters, warriors, and never terrorists.
Now here, we are talking about the number one terrorism supporting state Iran, calling its enemies terrorists. It’s like Hitler calling his foes racists. AP passes on the word as a quote. Why doesn’t AP do that too with Hamas or Hezbollah? We know, we understand.
If AP calls Hamas or Hezbollah “terrorists,” everyone knows that the quotation marks are redundant. They ARE terrorists. And AP’s abuse of language is to HIDE that they are a bunch of blood-thirsty, power-hungry, civilians attacking, war criminals. Hence: fighters.
In any case, we now see that the AP computers don’t block the word “terrorists.”
It’s the editors, stupid!
There is a basic principle in Islamic scripture—unknown to most not-so-observant Muslims and most non-Muslims—called “commanding right and forbidding wrong.” It obligates Muslim males to police behavior seen to be wrong and personally deal out the appropriate punishment as stated in scripture. In its mildest form, devout people give friendly advice to abstain from wrongdoing. Less mild is the practice whereby Afghan men feel empowered to beat women who are not veiled.
By publicizing the supposed sins of Messrs. Stone and Parker, Mr. Amrikee undoubtedly believes he is fulfilling his duty to command right and forbid wrong. His message is not just an opinion. It will appeal to like-minded individuals who, even though they are a minority, are a large and random enough group to carry out the divine punishment. The best illustration of this was demonstrated by the Somali man who broke into Mr. Westergaard’s home in January carrying an axe and a knife.
Check Boston Globe for a report, “‘South Park’ vs. Revolution Muslim.”
And Ann Althouse, “Comedy Central cowers in the face of a murder threat/warning against “South Park” creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker.” (Via Memeorandum.) And at Gay Patriot:
Those in our media élites have been taught to see “the other” as the victim of Western cultural hegemony, hence they excuse the violent posturing (and actions) of those deemed spokesmen for (or representatives of) the Third World and/or the “oppressed.” By contrast, any attempt to stand up for the ideas which made this nation great are seen as retrograde, reversion to their perverted image of what our nation’s past was. (Perverted because they define our past by its worst aspects, oblivious to the fact that at least since Reagan, conservatives don’t want to turn back the clock.)
Plus, some video background: