Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Is Barack Obama a Fool or a Liar?

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

I am going with fool and let me tell you why.

In a recent piece entitled "Israelis Prefer Romney" I claimed that Obama "praised the rise of the radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s."

Stuart took exception to this saying:

You know Michael, a lot of your rhetoric sounds exactly like the lies that Mitt Romney tells.

Obama never "praised the rise of the radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s." and you damn well know it.

Because Barack Obama did, in fact, praise the rise of radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s, I referred Stuart to the direct quote.

Upon the revolution in Tunisia, which was just one of the various Islamist revolutions taking place across the Muslim Middle East Barack Obama said this:

There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.

To which Stuart claimed, "He was referring to the overthrow of the non-democratic government. Not the rise of islamic jihad."

The truth, of course, is that while it is probably true that Obama thought that he was praising the overthrow of a non-democratic government, he was also praising, wittingly or not, the rise of the radical Jihad throughout the Muslim Middle East.

The question then becomes, is Barack Obama a fool or a liar?

When all the riots and rapes and bloodshed rocked the Arab world last year, many on the progressive-left, including Barack Obama, praised the chaos and murder and mayhem as actually the rise of Arab-Muslim democracy. At the time, unlike president Obama, I was willing to take a wait-and-see approach. My suspicion was that we were going to see the rise of radical Islam and that is precisely what happened, which is why the Muslim Brotherhood has taken over the government of Egypt.

Thus when Obama told the world how wonderful this all was and how it was something akin to the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement, I knew immediately how irresponsible and foolish such claims were and are. He was, whatever his intention, praising the rise of Islamic fascism as the wondrous up-welling of democracy.

I do not believe that Barack Obama lied. What is obviously true is that he interpreted the Arab Spring within the ideological parameters set forth by the mainstream media. Throughout that period we were generally told that the "Arab Spring" was the glorious rise of democracy and the yearning of the Arab peoples for the blessings of liberty. In this way the west, in general, and Barack Obama, in particular, projected our hopes and aspirations onto people who do not necessarily share those hopes and aspirations.

The "Arab Spring" was not about democracy, nor about overthrowing tyrants or ridding the Middle East of non-democratic governments. It was (and is) about the rise of radical Islam, a movement that subjugates women, slaughters gay people, despises non-Muslims, holds a genocidal intention toward the tiny Jewish minority in the Middle East, and that has a historical provenance that goes in part to Nazi Germany. Thus when Obama said "think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat" he was, despite his best intentions, praising "the rise of the radical Jihad as something akin to the Spirit of '76 or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and the 1960s."

If that was not his intention then he is a fool, otherwise he is a liar.

I will go with fool.

62 comments:

  1. I believe his shortfall was in creating the perception that the Islamists are not objectionable.

    It is hard to fathom that he could not foresee the rise of the MB, yet he gave a stamp of approval when he could have withheld it, pending the result that many others cautioned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What would motivate him to do so, I wonder?

      He must have known that in demanding the ouster of Mubarak that the MB was waiting in the wings. My assumption is that he honestly believes that the MB is moderate, or will moderate with power.

      Thus I consider the man a fool and not suited to the position that he holds.

      He is toying with the lives of the 6 million in Israel and I, for one, do not appreciate it.

      Delete
    2. Since he was a foreign policy novice, someone must have told him stuff that led him to those conclusions. I'm thinking State Dep't but also we know that he has lots of Muslim and or Arab advisors around him.

      Delete
    3. Meanwhile, Egyptian tanks are moving into the Sinai.

      http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4271499,00.html

      Thank you, Barack.

      {Israel's BFF.}

      Delete
    4. Not just tanks but anti-aircraft missiles.....as if the jihadists have airplanes. When he fucks up, he fucks up big; I'll give him that.

      Delete
    5. No Doodad... NOT anti-aircraft batteries. There are NO SAM batteries being moved up to the border at all, despite what rumors Right Wing Radio reports as fact.

      Actually, it is Six (6) tanks and Five (5) Armored Personnel Carriers (APC's)that are being deployed in order to fight the al-Qaeda Terrorist cells that have infiltrated the Beduoin tribes in the Sinai.

      According to Reuters.. The Israelis are actually working THROUGH the American negotiators and HAVE NOT lodged any protests.

      " Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has not lodged any formal protest preferring to try and resolve the issue in quiet contacts including U.S. mediation, to avoid worsening ties with Cairo already strained since Hosni Mubarak was toppled by a popular revolt last year.

      Egyptian security sources said this week they were preparing to deploy aircraft and tanks in Sinai for the first time since a 1973 war with Israel, in a crackdown on Islamist militants blamed for killing 16 border guards in an August5 attack.....

      ....The Israeli official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, said Egypt had already sent "some" armored vehicles into the desert peninsula and that "Israel is bothered by the entry of armored vehicles in Sinai without coordination."


      From what I read about it, though this deployment IS a violation of the treaty, Six Tanks, Five APC's and Helicopters are hardly a threat to the Israelis. You can bet that had their been SAM batteries moved in within range of Israel, Israeli forces would already have been operating in the Sinai (covertly).

      I don't think that PM Netanyahu OR DM Barak given their military backgrounds would be allowing that to happen.

      It is pretty simple here... The President is building a coalition to fight against the Iranian Hegemony (and by proxy, Russian and Chinese influence in the region - just look at Syria). He is trying to keep the Turks and the Egyptians as a counter force to Iran and Hizbollah, who for all intensive purposes is Lebanon. This is "Realpolitik" at it's finest.

      But for argument's sake, let's say he's wrong about Egypt here and they are as you all maintain some arm of the "International Jihad to wipe out the Jews"... If the U.S. pulls out their influence then what? Where do you think the Egyptians will go for money? My bet is Iran (and again by proxy Russia and China). NOW.. Israel would have Hizbollah and 40,000 rockets on their Northern Border, AND and Iranian funded Egypt on their Southern border. How does that work out?

      SO... Remind me, what is President Obama doing wrong in this situation again? Prime Minister Netanyahu trusts him to work it out. While I am no fan of the PM, I do trust that he knows what he is doing here.

      Also, I would ask, since this seems to be Team Romney here... What would Mitt do differently? Right now he has already reversed himself on Jerusalem, he has stated that he would do EXACTLY what the President is doing on Egypt.

      To ensure Israel’s security, Mitt Romney will work closely with Israel to maintain its strategic military edge. The United States will work intensively with Turkey and Egypt to shore up the now fraying relationships with Israel that have underpinned peace in the Middle East for decades.

      http://www.mittromney.com/issues/israel

      So what do you think will be different.

      Oh yeah and the Egyptian People - you know... the ones that elected the Muslim Brotherhood to office. Well they said this:

      Presented with a choice between President Obama and likely Republican candidate Mitt Romney, 73% said they preferred Romney, and only 25% chose Obama.

      http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2012/05/21-egyptian-election-poll-telhami

      Delete
    6. It is not Team Romney. In fact, it is way more diverse than some other blogs, even if it does not hold back against Obama.

      With the exception of Israel, I suggest US influence in the region is small, and only a consequence of corruption.

      Irrespective of how it would be under Romney, which you do not know, under Obama it has been pretty bad.

      If you believe that the danger to Israel and Jews is not growing, and that allegiance to Obama should override the clear warning signs on the horizon, then we see things much differently.

      Delete
    7. Hmmm Interesting here:

      With the exception of Israel, I suggest US influence in the region is small, and only a consequence of corruption.

      I have to disagree completely. The U.S. is the dominant economic power in the Gulf States including the K.S.A. which are all funding the Syrian Revolt. Of course the U.S. is the main arms and economic aid supplier to Egypt and let's not forget Jordan who despite a low profile is a major player. I would hardly call that "small". Is it based on "corruption"? Everything in the Middle East (including Israel) is tainted by "corruption". Heck, politics EVERYWHERE are corrupt to a certain degree.

      Irrespective of how it would be under Romney, which you do not know, under Obama it has been pretty bad.

      Nope... First of all, the Israeli Defense establishment says otherwise concerning how things have been "under Obama". I trust them a whole lot more than I do the ravings of either the Israeli or the American Right.

      But second and more important. You cannot discount what Romney might do and has already indicated what he would do. HE is the person running for President to try to take President Obama's job. So what he has done and said, his obvious lack of Foreign Policy Skill and his lack of a consistent position on anything much less Israel is an important part of making a decision when it is time to vote.

      If you believe that the danger to Israel and Jews is not growing, and that allegiance to Obama should override the clear warning signs on the horizon, then we see things much differently.

      I do think the danger to Israel and Jews is growing in the world today. But I think there are multiple threats including from some Jews to other Jews. I actually believe the Jewish community is at one of those periodic "crossroads" in it's history and I think we have to be careful with how we deal with this. But that is NOT the topic of my comment.

      As for my "allegiance to President (he deserves the respect of title) Obama"... I believe that he offers the best hope for the American people (of all races and religions) for our future. Since I am an American, my primary focus is on voting with regards to my own country's interests, which btw, does include a strong and secure Israel (but there are many interests in front of that one). As for Jews and President Obama, I strongly believe he is our friend and a supporter. So that is why I and most American Jews support him.

      Delete
    8. The "team" thing is yet more psychological projection from a guy who very recently threw a foot-stomping, days-long fit and threatened to shut his blog down, when somebody (not me) dared to post a diary there containing (horror of horrors!) a link to the Elder of Ziyon blog. Talk about 'team' play.

      And as for diversity, you've nailed it 'school. We have not only an Obama voter on the front page, but also an international roster here.

      And to preempt the inevitable "but Jay, you don't count because you don't write nine diaries a week on how awesome Obama is!!1!" 'argument,' I'll simply note that 1) this blog is not about American domestic issues, which said issues are the only reason I will be voting for Obama again, in that I just don't agree with national Republicans on anything there; and 2) I never have been, nor do I have any desire to now pretend to be, 'fired up' or whatever this year's poll-tested catch phrase is, for another bland politician who I can't tell apart from anybody else in the current, stale Democratic Party. In other words, this year I am not voting for anybody, so much as I am voting against what I believe are the other guy's party's misplaced economic, energy, transportation and other assorted urban policies. And it is not my job, nor is this the place, to tell anybody what to do on that last count here.

      Delete
    9. Explain away the corruption. Sure, it exists everywhere, but not to the same degree, and here it is rampant. What's worse is that the leaders often steal from their own people.

      Obama came to office with no foreign policy experience. It is unfair to blame Romney for the same thing. Under Obama, however, the fact is that the MB has been legitimized and empowered, and political Islam and associated violence has spread to new levels, concerning Israel and elsewhere.

      Support for Obama is well and good, but impugning others who don't hold him in such esteem, in blanket form, is not.

      Delete
    10. Ok... so Doodad maintains that Egypt has moved SAM batteries (Anti-Aircraft missles to the Border), a very serious charge and one that would no doubt send an extremely disturbing message to Israel and the world, and no one on this website has even bothered to look for confirming data and meanwhile because of this are going into full anti-President Obama rants based on this data.

      And no one seems to want to address the fact that this information doesn't seem to have one bit of factual backing. NOR it seems does anyone want to address the fact that the Israelis ARE communicating with the Egyptians and that they ARE trusting the Americans to resolve this issue.

      ALSO... no one seems to want to address that we are talking about a relatively small amount of tanks and personnel being deployed in order to fight the al-Qaeda cells that are forming in the Bedu tribes and threaten not only Egypt, but also Israel.

      Instead... we have some focus on a "Team Romney" comment (which this blog HAS come out in favor of), and some other personal nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the comment.

      Now, have any of you in your haste to rip President Obama given one iota of thought to what is actually happening in this instance... and in the Sinai in general. You claim to care about Israel. Ok... So, what would you do differently from President Obama? Do you think the U.S. is acting improperly here? If President Obama were NOT in office and were replaced by Mitt Romney what would he do differently and what would be the results of that difference?

      Delete
    11. If you don't want the focus to be on your insults and snide commentary, there's a simple way to avoid that - don't charge in here launching snide, blanket insults against everybody who participates here. It wouldn't be that much of an issue if you didn't do this every. single. time. you stop in.

      As for the rest, please point out where I have "ripped" the president (stating that I do not find him, or the Democratic Party as a whole, exciting in their current form does not qualify as "ripping" - please tone down the internet hyperbole). I do not believe I have, and as Mike sure knows, I give Obama a bit more credit on this issue than others here. Although perhaps not as much as you and others.

      In the end, we'll see who's correct. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on Middle East politics, nor have I ever done so. My main focus here is simply on culture, and in cleaning out my house (the left) of antisemites and useful idiot anti-Zionists.

      Delete
    12. @ Oldschool:

      Explain away the corruption. Sure, it exists everywhere, but not to the same degree, and here it is rampant. What's worse is that the leaders often steal from their own people.

      Wait... name one place in the Middle East that the leaders don't steal from their own people (and yes that includes Israel)? Is Israel less corrupt than say the Gulf or anywhere else. Yep, but compared to other "First World Nations"... HEH... Spend some time there.

      But again that had nothing to do with the original comment.

      Obama came to office with no foreign policy experience. It is unfair to blame Romney for the same thing.

      Well for starters, President Obama chose a V.P. (Joe Biden) and an administration with some serious "foreign policy chops". Romney on the other hand has advisers from the disastrous Bush Admin. (you know the guys that started the Iraq conflict and pretty much worsened anything that was happening in the M.E. to the nth degree).

      Under Obama, however, the fact is that the MB has been legitimized and empowered, and political Islam and associated violence has spread to new levels, concerning Israel and elsewhere.

      More correctly this would be that Egyptian Democracy was legitimized and because of that the Muslim Brotherhood was allowed to gain power and influence. Yet that was what was voted on by the Egyptian people (and Tunisian people as well though Ennhanada seems less radical than the MB - at least in practice). Again, what would you have had us do differently? THEN... what do you think the results would have been had we done anything differently. For instance, if the U.S. had not said a word either way, do you think Mubarak or the S.C.A.F. would still be holding the Presidency of Egypt?

      Support for Obama is well and good, but impugning others who don't hold him in such esteem, in blanket form, is not.

      As opposed to making ridiculous statements regarding the President supporting Islamists or saying that Progressive Zionists blame Jews for their own problems? You mean like that?

      Delete
    13. @ Jay:

      As for the rest, please point out where I have "ripped" the president (stating that I do not find him, or the Democratic Party as a whole, exciting in their current form does not qualify as "ripping" - please tone down the internet hyperbole). I do not believe I have,

      Jay... this is not about you nor have I said that you in particular have ripped the President.

      I do not believe I have, and as Mike sure knows, I give Obama a bit more credit on this issue than others here. Although perhaps not as much as you and others.

      Yep, I know that.

      In the end, we'll see who's correct. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on Middle East politics, nor have I ever done so. My main focus here is simply on culture, and in cleaning out my house (the left) of antisemites and useful idiot anti-Zionists.

      Again, Jay.. that's great. Kol haKavod.

      Delete
    14. Quoting you from just a few minutes ago -

      "Instead... we have some focus on a "Team Romney" comment"

      Well, okay. Even though that line was in a comment in a thread directly below a comment of mine where I addressed your "Team Romney" thing, I'll take your word for it that the follow-up was 'not about [me].'

      Also, pardon me for assuming that this comment...

      "Now, have any of you in your haste to rip President Obama"

      ...in a thread where I was one of the "you"s directly involved, would also perhaps have something to do with me. Again, I'll take your word for it that it didn't, though.

      Thanks for the clarification, however. Job well done.

      Delete
    15. Okie Dokie, How about this correction:

      Any of you EXCEPT for Jay? Will that work?

      Still, no one seems to be addressing the main points of this. Surely that is important. Wouldn't you agree. I mean if one is going to rip the President or make claims regarding this, then shouldn't those claims be challenged when they demonstrably false?

      Delete
    16. Israeli leaders are as corrupt as their Arab counterparts? Are you serious?

      The foreign policy experience argument is a ruse. Obama kept Gates, one of Bush's men, too.

      There is no Egyptian democracy. To imply so is an absurdity. The US could have been a bit more outspoken and less eager to throw its lot with the MB and the like.

      Just because some do not like Obama does not mean that all have the exact same opinion. Are you any different than those you criticize when it comes to being black and white?

      Delete
    17. I thought we just went through this, no?

      As for "no one" addressing your question, it could maybe be that they've stepped away from the computer for a bit? That happens every now and again. In fact, I have to run myself in a bit. ;)

      I'm sure Mike and others will be happy to address your concerns in time.

      Delete
    18. @ oldschool... Part I

      Curious reading here:

      Israeli leaders are as corrupt as their Arab counterparts? Are you serious?

      Is that what I said? Why no, that is NOT what I said. In fact, I said the exact opposite. Perhaps you should have actually read my comment here:

      Is Israel less corrupt than say the Gulf or anywhere else. Yep, but compared to other "First World Nations"... HEH... Spend some time there.

      Now that should have read "anywhere else in the region" but the context is obvious. So where do you possibly get that I said "Israeli leaders are just as corrupt as their Arab counterparts" from that comment?????

      The foreign policy experience argument is a ruse. Obama kept Gates, one of Bush's men, too.

      That is true he did. He kept ONE man who also for the most part agreed with President Obama's vision for the Sec. Def. as well as not wanting to change out in time of war particularly during the Iraq drawdown. HOWEVER, One man does not a Foreign Policy team make. The Secretary of Defense is not the main force behind shaping our foreign policy. That is the duty of the State Department. And the choices of President Obama stand in stark contrast to the Bush Admin. and their spectacular failures.

      Delete
    19. @oldschool Part II:

      There is no Egyptian democracy.To imply so is an absurdity

      Tell that to the millions of Egyptians that actually voted for and GOT the President they voted for. Now will the Brotherhood maintain that? Given their history, I doubt it (but one never knows), however you cannot deny that elections did take place, the Mubarak dictatorship was ended and a popular regime (whether you like ir or not did take power DUE TO ELECTIONS). Or do you deny that?

      The US could have been a bit more outspoken and less eager to throw its lot with the MB and the like.

      Ok, let's break this down into two parts. First of all about "the U.S. being more outspoken". I asked this question of you (and any of the other regulars here that might care to answer) before and I will ask again:

      ...THEN... what do you think the results would have been had we done anything differently. For instance, if the U.S. had not said a word either way, do you think Mubarak or the S.C.A.F. would still be holding the Presidency of Egypt?

      In my opinion, had we spoken out AGAINST The choice of the Egyptian people in any regards, most likely we would have moved the needle even harder in Morsi's direction. FURTHER, our influence wrt the new regime would have been drastically less than the already weakened position it is in. Disagree with me? Ok... tell me why or how that would have worked.

      The second part deals with how "eager" the U.S. was to support the MB. Now, a cynic (and that would be me in this case) could argue that this was a decision at State, that they saw the "way the wind was blowing" and rolled with it. Makes sense to me. Try to use influence and money to keep the Brotherhood dependent on the U.S. and thus malleable to our regional goals. Does that mean I think we were "eager" to support the MB? No. That means that in the analysis of State this is what we had to do to hold the region. Will it work? I don't know. But I do know that had we simply blown them off the situation as it is happening would have been infinitely worse, and there really might be SAM batteries on the border with Israel.

      Now, let's go back to the original comment (one that you don't really seem to want to discuss). What should America (and Israel) do now at this point in the game? If the Egyptians leave the Sinai be, they don't have the manpower or materials to stop the al-Qaeda cells, in the Sinai. Thus, there would be a ton of terror coming from that area. If they do bring in the "hardware" to do that, then they are in violation of the treaty. IF they go public asking the Israelis to help, the MB loses its popular base. If they don't the Americans and Israelis react forcefully. Catch-22

      For the Israelis, if they don't let the Egyptians operate in the Sinai with appropriate materials... Then they get terror on their borders. If they do allow the Egyptians to do that, then they face issues with regards to the Egyptians bringing in military forces in violation to the peace treaty and have to trust the ruling Muslim Brotherhood not to completely abuse that. Catch-22

      Also, do you believe that the Egyptians have moved SAM batteries or other anti-aircraft batteries into the Sinai in violation of the Peace Treaty?

      Delete
    20. Like many other things, we differ on the meaning of democracy.

      I said, be more outspoken. Use soft power also. If nothing else, this would have provided support to the liberals and seculars throughout the Muslim world, and to democrats everywhere. How do you know this would have had a negative effect? The actions taken amount to support of the MB, with impunity, and the "democracy" is a dictatorship.

      To me, you appear afraid to confront the bully, to prevent the bully from being worse. I am not afraid to assert my values against the bully's. I am not so foolish as to believe that the bully can be converted into a democrat.

      As for the anti-aircraft missiles, it seems an open question. You have provided nothing authoritative either, but said this:

      You can bet that had their been SAM batteries moved in within range of Israel, Israeli forces would already have been operating in the Sinai (covertly).

      Any source for that assertion?




      Delete
    21. @oldschool... Part I

      Like many other things, we differ on the meaning of democracy.

      Well I pretty much stick to the dictionary definition as my base. How do you define "Democracy"?

      I said, be more outspoken. Use soft power also. If nothing else, this would have provided support to the liberals and seculars throughout the Muslim world, and to democrats everywhere. How do you know this would have had a negative effect?

      Ok well, let's see what the President actually said in this regard... We know that he did call President Morsi to congratulate him, and we also know that he did call the loser (and military candidate Shafiq to tell him to remain in politics):

      "The White House is cautiously praising the outcome of Egypt’s first competitive presidential election, won by Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party.

      “The United States congratulates Dr. Mohamed Morsi on his victory in Egypt’s Presidential election, and we congratulate the Egyptian people for this milestone in their transition to democracy,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney in a statement.

      “We look forward to working together with President-elect Morsi and the government he forms, on the basis of mutual respect, to advance the many shared interests between Egypt and the United States,” he said.

      Morsi won 52 percent of the vote in a run-off election.

      President Obama later called Moris to offer his congratulations. He also called General Ahmed Shafiq, who was defeated by Morsi, and urged him to play a role in Egypt's transition by supporting the democratic process.


      also in that article:

      Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) Kerry joined the White House in lauding the election while acknowledging concern over the Muslim Brotherhood’s past.

      “Obviously American concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood’s past statements and positions are widely shared and well understood,” he said. “But it would be a mistake for us to pull back from our engagement with a free and democratic Egypt. This is a time to test intentions not to prejudge them.”

      He said the “Egyptian people deserve enormous praise for conducting the first democratically-elected presidential election of the post-Mubarak era.”


      http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/234459-white-house-offers-cautious-praise-of-egypts-election-of-muslim-brotherhood-president

      Delete
    22. @ oldschool Part II:

      As for:

      The actions taken amount to support of the MB, with impunity, and the "democracy" is a dictatorship.

      No they don't amount to anything other than support for the process for Egyptian Democracy. That's all they amount to. Again, you are not offering alternatives to what the President and his foreign policy team have done. In fact, using "soft power" is EXACTLY what the Clinton team is doing. So why are you criticizing the Administration for this? AND then why do you say Mitt Romney would be better than President Obama here? What exactly do you think Romney and his "team" would do?

      To me, you appear afraid to confront the bully, to prevent the bully from being worse.

      Then you haven't been reading what I have been posting. I am not "afraid" to confront the MB, but, there is no need to "confront" them until they go hard against U.S. wishes in the region. If they abrogate the treaty, (something the Israeli leadership would obviously address) I think the U.S. should withhold aid, but they haven't done that.

      In this case, the Egyptians are taking steps towards democracy. Now, if those steps continue - that is a good thing. If they do not and they just traded one dictator for another... then there is a problem. And it's a problem the Egyptian people will have to solve. They just got rid of one dictator a year ago. Give them time. Their President was just elected. Rather than running around panicked, let's see what happens.

      Oh and as for security for Israel - something that you (and this blog seem to care a great deal about) you do realize that it was the "Secular and Liberal" Egyptian parties that were calling for complete abrogation of the Peace treaty, NOT the Islamist parties. You know this? Right?

      As for this:

      As for the anti-aircraft missiles, it seems an open question.

      No, it doesn't. NO WHERE outside of one right winger saying it (and Right Wing outlets picking it up) are there reports on SAM (or anti-aircraft) batteries being pulled to the Israeli border or within range of Israeli flights. The Israeli Military is not making this assertion and they MORE than the Wingnuts know. One would think that if there were anti-aircraft batteries being positioned in the Sinai in violation of the treaty we would have had massive confirmation. All that we see is confirmation of Armor, Helicopters, and Personnel in the area AND in relatively non-threatening numbers.

      Again though, tell me what would you do differently here? Address the situation and remember the consequences. You claim to care about Israel here. So... would your solution help or is it realistic? Whatever that solution might be.

      As for this:

      You can bet that had their been SAM batteries moved in within range of Israel, Israeli forces would already have been operating in the Sinai (covertly).

      Any source for that assertion?


      Nope... Never claimed there was. BUT, do you really think the IDF is that clueless that they would allow that to happen? Do you really think that given the experience of the Yom Kippur War, with an aggressive team like that of PM Netanyahu that no one would be taking action? Give the Israelis some credit here. I do.

      But anyway, Yes or No:

      Also, do you believe that the Egyptians have moved SAM batteries or other anti-aircraft batteries into the Sinai in violation of the Peace Treaty?

      Pretty straight forward question.

      Delete
    23. Not my job to offer alternatives, although speaking out and using soft power ARE alternatives. Soft power does not mean inviting Morsi to the White House.

      I have been reading enough of what you are saying to know that it is far from how I see it. You are not afraid to confront the MB, yet criticize those who do and rationalize why they should not.

      By the way, "democracy" is NOT a proper noun or adjective. As for the seculars and liberals, they are far more likely to be converted to democracy than a group that seeks to completely destroy the West and create a system based on Sharia.

      The anti-aircraft missile debate shows that you have no more idea than anyone, despite your speculation about the matter and useless question about what I believe, which matters not one iota in the scheme of things.



      Delete
    24. So inviting the Egyptian head of State (a country you give $ 2 billion in aid to every year on the condition they hold to the Peace treaty with Israel) is now all of a sudden capitulation? Don't you think the head of the country who gets that much U.S. $$$ should be invited to the White House as befits the leader of a major country in the area?

      You are not afraid to confront the MB, yet criticize those who do and rationalize why they should not.

      Nope... I don't criticize you anyone who criticizes the MB and points out the rabid nature of their politics. I criticize those who wrongfully criticize the administration and distort its policies and record.

      Criticize the MB all you like (not that you need my permission). I won't say "BOO". They are awful. But let's keep the discussion in the world of reality.

      And not to be petty but:

      de·moc·ra·cy noun \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
      plural de·moc·ra·cies


      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

      The anti-aircraft missile debate shows that you have no more idea than anyone, despite your speculation about the matter and useless question about what I believe, which matters not one iota in the scheme of things.

      Nope. I am not the one that asserted that the Egyptians put SAM Batteries (or other anti-Aircraft) systems into the Sinai that violated the treaty. Doodad did, and he did it without verifying it. You seem to be loathe to address that point.

      Now I didn't assert anything on this for you. You seem to be making that up as well. But I will ask you again in a very straight forward manner:

      Also, do you believe that the Egyptians have moved SAM batteries or other anti-aircraft batteries into the Sinai in violation of the Peace Treaty?

      and let me add... If so, then what is your source and reasoning. If not what is your reasoning and why are you not challenging Doodad's assertion. Pretty straight forward here - I am not sure just why you won't state your opinion.


      Delete
    25. SAMS or not, the Egyptians HAVE violated the peace treaty by moving stuff there unilaterally. I believe I read they had permission to move some extra troops but not anything else. So, the treaty has been violated and everyone is just pussyfooting around about it as far as I can see. The MB has everyone by the bag and I bet they are laughing their heads off about it.

      Delete
    26. I think it is a bad move to invite him. He is a dictator, as these past weeks have made clear.

      That is right, no matter the policy, you criticize anyone that criticizes Obama, in pejorative terms no less.

      I said democracy is not a PROPER noun or adjective, which means it is not capitalized unless starting a sentence. You have referred to Egyptian Democracy several times.

      You did not assert anything about the missiles, yet in essence you did assert that Israel would be doing something covert if they were deployed.

      I made no assertion whatsoever on the matter, but stated it was an open question. I have no obligation to provide a source, or to challenge others, despite what you believe. Nor is my opinion on the matter relevant, except to argue about the unknown. I have better things to do.

      Delete
    27. But wait Doodad, the SAMS (anti-aircraft weaponry) thing is important. You have been asserting this for a couple of days, and by implication as we see in this thread that it is the fault of the Obama administration that there are SAM's in the Sinai in violation of the treaty. That is a very, very serious breach of the treaty and one that would (in my mind) be an act of war.

      But that's not what happened.

      Now you are correct (as I have said before) that the Egyptians by moving armor and helicopters in ARE in violation of the treaty. However, I believe the Israelis (and Americans) are smart enough to realize that the treaty in this case does have to be amended to allow for the Egyptians to maintain control over the Sinai.

      Al-Qaeda has heavy weapons, and the training (as we saw in the deaths of the 16 Egyptian soldiers in a terrorist attack) to wreck heavy damage. They weren't around when the treaty was signed. The Israelis recognize this. So allowing a few tanks and Helicopters into the Sinai does nothing to abrogate the spirit of the treaty. If you were Israeli you would probably let this happen. This minor force does nothing to threaten the IDF, and yet allows Morsi to toss "red meat" to the masses (who are pissed off that Egypt CUT-OFF Gaza by closing the Rafah crossing as punishment for the terror strikes (that Hamas knew about).

      However, what's your alternative to what the Obama administration is doing here or what the Netanyahu administration is doing there. How far do you think they should take this issue?

      Delete
  2. Hopefully he will keep his nose out of Jordan before Israel is TOTALLY surrounded by hostile, empowered Islamists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think what pisses me off the most, Doodad, is the failure on the part of the administration to acknowledge what is happening.

      Obama does not need to be George W. Bush, but neither should he simply be ignoring this problem, a problem that he is actually facilitating.

      Day after day after day we get blood-curdling evidence from MEMRI, and other such groups, that show pure hatred of the very worst and most violent sort just pouring out of the mosques of the Middle East. In the mean time we have Iranian leaders calling Israel a "tumor" as they seek nuclear weaponry and the Arab governments refusing to normalize relations. On top of that we have western progressives who despise Israel and draw a moral equivalence between Likud and Hamas.

      And, finally, on top of that we have Jewish progressives who blame the whole mess on their fellow Jews in Israel, just as the progressives in general do, just as the Arab governments and peoples do and just as the Palestinians do.

      They've been kicking our ass for 14 hundred years in the Middle East, yet progressives sit in their clean, safe homes and apartments and offices throughout the United States and Europe and just blithely wave a hand and condemn the Jews.

      Fuck.

      That.

      Shit.

      Delete
  3. He's not a fool, he's an Islamist. From http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/:

    "Few Americans understand Obama's perfidious policy of overtly siding with rightwing political Islam and overlapping elements of organized Islam. America's first Muslim-born President (Islam traces the religion through the father), and first President to have ever studied and practiced Islam (which he did as a child in Indonesia), has effectively narrowed the definition of the Islamist enemy to Al Qaeda and its closest affiliates, except for so-called reconcilable members of the medieval Taliban. Practically every other Islamist group or regime, including, even, Iran's monstrous mullahocracy, which Obama desperately sought to engage (code for collaborate or align with) after taking office, is regarded as a potential ally by the administration."

    As raw as that reads, there's no hyperbole at all there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with much of that quote, but that still doesn't make him an Islamist.

      An Islamist is someone who wants to see Sharia as the basis of law throughout the planet. An Islamist is someone who longs for the Caliphate.

      By this definition Barack Obama is no Islamist.

      However, he clearly has some sympathies for those who are because he views them through the lens of post-colonial theory. If you could uncork his skull Edward Said would pop out, followed closely by Rashid Kalidi.

      He has considerable sympathies for these racist and fascist political movements of the Middle East not so much because he agrees with their particulars, but because he sees them as the result of American and western imperialism in that part of the world.

      Delete
    2. Yep. Bush was no Islamist either but he gave us an elected terrorist gov't in Palestine because he believed in Democracy (or some damn thing.) A pox on them all.

      Delete
  4. Volleyball. Actually, the full anti-Obama was in motion before I ever posted about the anti-aircraft stuff. I have yet to see any press denying it but you seem to have info and I hope it's right. I am not tied to the original press on it. That said, Egypt is playing a dangerous game here moving ANY stuff to the border unilaterally while a treaty is in effect. And of course Morsi is going to Tehran isn't he?

    For me the linkage is clear. Obama went to Cairo and insisted the MB be allowed to attend. Now we have Egypt moving stuff to the border unilaterally. Obama opened a door which should have remained closed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm, Obama went to Cairo and insisted the Opposition attend his speech. I would have done the same, but, I can see your objections on that and those too make sense.

      As for Morsi going to Iran... He is... and he is going to visit the U.S. and China as well.

      NOW, the China visit is what worries me more than the Iranian visit. The Iranian visit is just part of that stupid conference of "non-aligned nations" a tired old piece of "we hate the West" propaganda generation and designed to give Iran a role as the leader against the U.S. - but Egypt wants to return to regional prominence so it is not surprising they would attend and make their play.

      The visit to China is much rougher stuff. That could be a signal (and I say could be) that Egypt will be trying to look other places than the U.S. (due to restrictions on U.S. aid) to make up for a break in the alliance. On the other hand it could just be a visit from a Head of State to an important nation. I think it is too early to be definitive on what it means.

      I seriously don't think Obama's invitation to the Brotherhood "opened a door" to their coming to power of anything else. Look at the make-up of the Egyptian parliament. It is heavily MB and Salafist. That is where the Egyptians were politically. I don't think the President had anything to do with the elections to begin with or the rise of the Brotherhood. They were already there.

      Delete
    2. This is some simplistic armchair analysis you have provided.

      Personally, I would have picked Mubarak in similar circumstances. This illustrated to the world that these MB guys are legitimate in American eyes. It benefited the MB without a doubt, when their beliefs are what should have been publicized instead.

      The NAM is far from "stupid" and has much more influence than you give credit. It often tips the balance at the UN and elsewhere when decisions are made by states. It is the international legal arena where the antipathy against the West effectively practiced. When the NAM partners with the OIC to abuse the mechanisms, it has profound effect.

      This speculation about Egypt's intent to attend is absent any foundation. To "make their play?" Have you any information to support that notion?

      The fact that people worry about a swing by Egypt to China contradicts the claim that our $2 billion gives us so much influence. Perhaps the aid is better seen as buying a situation off so it will not become even worse.

      Finally, the "make-up" of Egypt politically is why it was a bad decision to treat the MB and now the state as if they want "friendly relations and co-operation" when they are unhesitant to practice hate and incitement that actually violates the Genocide Convention of 1948.

      Delete
  5. Reading this thread sent a chill down my spine.

    Your President scares me.

    There is no excuse for not knowing what the MB is. Sure there are shades and occasionally warring factions and even more extreme groups but there always are among fascists. There is no excuse for giving them a prestige boost. To have done so even before the Egyptian people had gone through their elections is an unforgivable sabotage of any hope of Egyptian democracy.

    If anyone needed a boost it was the reformers and secularists, and there were some, who wanted a modern prosperous nation at peace with the world and free of the dead hand of Political Islam. What guts these people had.

    Instead he betrayed them.

    How cynical is that?

    If the man isn't a fool he's a very dangerous liar indeed.

    What is this policy of the US? Exerting influence by supporting them? Bring them around to your way of thinking by both appeasing AND arming them as well as overlooking the vile homicidal antisemitism?

    Not even Chamberlain did that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Umm Geoff... Do you know who the "secularists" were in this race?

      Well the main, "Liberal" or "Secularist" parties were reconstructed Nasserites. Is that who you think the President should have supported?

      OH... are you talking about Shafiq, and his crew of ex-Mubarak people? Well it seems that the President did not support either side.

      Here you go, from the Washington Post:

      Prior to Sunday’s announcement that Muslim-Brotherhood backed Mohamed Morsi had won Egypt’s presidential election, the Obama administration had expressed no public preference for the outcome. Whether the new government is run by Islamists or military-aligned autocrats, it holds little short-term promise for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/egypt-appears-to-underline-the-limit-of-us-influence/2012/06/24/gJQAFVeczV_story.html

      So where are you getting that the President gave the Muslim Brotherhood a "presitge boost" (Reputable sources only please)?

      How did the Obama Administration "betray" the Egyptian people? They voted FOR the Brotherhood.

      IN FACT, the President actively tried to STOP Congress from cutting off funds to the SCAF (and was successful). Sorry but I think you have your facts a tad mixed up.

      You ask:

      What is this policy of the US? Exerting influence by supporting them? Bring them around to your way of thinking by both appeasing AND arming them as well as overlooking the vile homicidal antisemitism?

      The Policy of the U.S. is to build an alliance to combat Iranian Hegemonistic interests in the region. It seems the administration at this point (key phrase "at this point") seems to think that the Egyptians are willing to take U.S. aid and support our overall interests in the region rather than supporting the Hizbollah / Syria / Iran axis of things.

      As for "homicidal anti-Semitism", yes they are overlooking that. But let's put it in context. Name one Arab ally of the U.S. that does not advocate "homicidal anti-Semitism"? The Saudi's? Baharain? Qatar? Iraq? Who? We overlook it in these guys and that is not just the Obama Administration. Remember who Bush and Reagan just loved (the Saudi's). You think they were not "homicidal anti-Semites"? Eh?

      As you say, not even Chamberlin did that.

      Delete
    2. I don't think I used the term "liberal".

      And "secular" in that part of the world is relative.

      The failure of the US and the West to stem the poison that flows from Saudi Arabia and other Arab "allies" in to even our countries let alone the Middle East is a scandalous failure of foreign policy.

      Thank you for reminding me of a third reason to vote for the other guy.

      Delete
    3. Who is the "other guy"? Mitt Romney....

      Well Geoff, you do know what his party (the Republicans) stands for in relation to the Saudis, right? I mean I can only assume that since you seem to understand that that you know that the Bush Family and G.W. (the last Bush President) called the Saudi King a "member of his family". You do know that the Reagan and Bush I administrations were huge on funding the Saudi military and were great friends with them? Right????

      I mean, if anyone, the Republicans, and particularly Reagan and both Bush's are responsible for our tight relationship with the K.S.A. Given that Mitt Romney wants to bring the Bush team BACK into the White House, why would you suggest voting for them?

      Delete
  6. "IF they go public asking the Israelis to help, the MB loses its popular base"

    GOOD!!!! Who gives a flying fuck about the MB other than other MBers and Jihadists anyway? SCREW the MB every way it can be done. No Catch22 there. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! Rationalizing deference to the MB is NOT the way.

      Delete
    2. Ummm Doodad... You do understand politics don't you? I mean I am not trying to be mean or anything here but why in the world would you expect the Muslim Brotherhood to go against their base? I mean, seriously... Where would ANY political group do that?

      I don't give a "flying fuck" about the Brotherhood either, but I do expect that they give a "flying fuck" about their own power.

      Whether you or I want them to simply ignore their "base" do you realistically see them actually doing that?

      It's a complete "Catch-22" for them. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

      I am not feeling sorry for them. I am telling you what the reality of the situation is. You do care about reality don't you?

      Delete
  7. BTW I don't think Team Romney is a fair description of my current political home either. For one thing I don't get a vote. For another like most Australians I had never heard of him until this year.

    If I was an American however I would vote for him for sure not because he was a Republican which I would not be either.

    It's because he is not Barack Obama.

    When it comes to facing up to Jihadism for what it is your President is the weakest and most dangerous since Jimmy Carter. He may well be the weakest and most dangerous Western leader in facing up to Jihadism since Neville Chamberlain.

    Of course Israel is central to this for Jews but it is easy to overlook the forest for the trees. To surrender Israel to them is unthinkable for us but not for them. Imagine for a moment a post-Israel world the wet dream of every Jihadist jerk off from Tehran to Tunisia; and with increasing passion and heat their Western Leftist allies.

    Think of it for a second. Think what the world would look like if the Jihadists and their friends in the West get their way. Even if it was done "peacefully" (the ugly delusion of fools and liars everywhere). What would be left of Europe? What would be left of the US? What would be left of our civilisation after a moral outrage of that order?

    Would it solve anything? Would they be appeased? Or would they continue to do what their God demands they do as surely as Hitler's God did of him.

    By sucking in the hate of these people for us into the very bones of our societies is to betray everything our countries should stand for.

    At core Israel is only one issue for Americans as someone here said. But this thing addresses Americans in a far more direct way than Israel alone. At core it's about what kind of a world we want to live in.

    For that reason it seems to me American Jews have two reasons to vote for the other guy even if they have never voted for a Republican before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now wait a minute:

      When it comes to facing up to Jihadism for what it is your President is the weakest and most dangerous since Jimmy Carter.

      Do you mean the guy who actually got the Camp David treaty signed and made it AGAINST U.S. LAW to follow the Arab boycott? That President Carter?

      Jimmy Carter was a bad President and I didn't vote for him (I voted for third party John Anderson that year). But for Israel he was far better as a President than either his predecessor (Gerald Ford) or his successor (Ronald Reagan). As an ex-President he is awful.

      As for this:

      He may well be the weakest and most dangerous Western leader in facing up to Jihadism since Neville Chamberlain.

      Wow, so the President that found and killed Osama Bin-Laden and more of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban leadership in four years than Bush did in eight is the "most dangerous Western Leader in facing up to Jihadism since Neville Chamberlin". Who knew? I mean I thought killing Jihadi's was actually standing against them. I stand corrected (/snark).

      But for argument's sake let's say you're right. What would Romney do differently? So far, he hasn't said anything different, AND his advisers are all part of Team Bush that did pretty much EVERYTHING wrong in the "War on Terror". But hey, tell me why they are better than the current administration.

      Anyway, who in the world is talking about "appeasing" Jihadi's. No one. Not me and if you think I am, re-read my comments. I don't want them appeased, I want them wiped out, and there is nothing in Mitt Romney or the Republican playbook that I can see that would accomplish this.

      Delete
    2. "Do you mean the guy who actually got the Camp David treaty signed and made it AGAINST U.S. LAW to follow the Arab boycott? That President Carter? "

      Yeah, that would be the fella. It's a travesty of the truth to credit him with any of the guts of Sadat and Begin. Sure he got his mug upfront and centre. You can praise him for that if you are an American Democrat but I demur for sure.

      This is the President who was in situ when the Islamic Revolution swept Iran. To me he is just another strange American man who can't see what is going on in front of his nose.

      You can't blame Chamberlain for the Nazis. He wasn't Prime Minister when they took Germany. He just appeased them. However Carter was President when they took Iran.

      Carter's brother would have made a better president. He couldn't have done any more harm and at least it would have been more entertaining.

      Delete
    3. Too bad Billy never got to try a Petrus Aged Pale, as I did at Kraftwork down in Fishtown earlier this week. He would have forgotten Billy Beer in a heart beat! ;)

      Now on to find that Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour this weekend sometime...

      Delete
  8. Reality is what one makes it. Actually the MB is damned neither way...it's all good for them.

    BTW I find it very odd there is SO little press about this coming out of Israel. Lips are pretty tight.

    And of course politicians go against their base all the time. All the freaking time once elected. It's almost a requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Reality is what one makes it. Actually the MB is damned neither way...it's all good for them.

    Wait... now we are discussing the nature of "reality"??? And no the MB is "damned" either way.

    Let's look at that shall we?

    IF the Egyptian Government goes to the Israelis and publicly says "Look we need your help fighting terror in the Sinai, let's do joint patrols and you give us permission to use armor and helicopters as a special amendment to the Treaty AND we in return give you permission to actually have Israeli advisers and troops over Egyptian territory then we are good to go - right?"

    That government would last all of about 5 minutes after news like that broke. Regardless of what one thinks, who in their right mind thinks ANYONE in the world would do that? I mean do you really think the Egyptians would?

    Personally I would love it if they did that but there is more chance of a Batman riding in on the outside of a flying saucer piloted by Bugs Bunny and the Smurfs than anything like that happening.

    BTW I find it very odd there is SO little press about this coming out of Israel. Lips are pretty tight.

    HUH??? There are stories up on Ynet and Haaretz right now on this and there have been for days. Everyone is talking about the Egyptians in the Sinai. Including this Headline:

    Report: Israel, Egypt reach understanding over military deployment in Sinai:

    An Egyptian military official says an understanding has been achieved between Israel and Egypt concerning deployment of troops in the Sinai Peninsula.

    As for this:

    And of course politicians go against their base all the time. All the freaking time once elected. It's almost a requirement.

    Not to the point that it would get them tossed out of office - immediately by their base. If Morsi went against his base to the degree that you ask, he would be facing millions in the street and his longevity could be measured in days if not minutes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh and to finish the thought on how the Egyptian Government is damned either way...

      IF they chose to abrogate the treaty, they would immediately lose $ 2 billion in U.S. aid and would forced into a situation where their ailing economy would be forced to nearly shut down. How long do you think they stay in power when their economy fails?

      Delete
    2. Who is going to "toss them out of office?" The Facebook kids? Get real.

      Delete
    3. Well let's see... if they turn to the Israelis their base will chuck them. If they break the economy ALL of the Egyptians will do it. They did it with Mubarak - what makes you think they can't do it again.

      Even Nasser faced open hostility in the streets. But I bet the Mubarak regime said the same thing about the "Facebook Kids". But you forget the SCAF (the military) has heavy economic interests that they will simply not allow to be threatened. Do you really think, if those interests are threatened, they will allow that to stand. They are the military not just some "facebook kids".

      Delete
  10. Well, keep looking through those rose colored glasses. The MB is in control and IMHO they will stay in control. My crystal ball says Egypt has seen its last election in quite some time. They are in Abbas mode now.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You mean Hamas mode.... That is more the MB model.

    Anyway, they will stay in control as long as they balance the Military and civilian demands. That is a tough act to follow until they can get control of the S.C.A.F.

    Doodad, that is NOT looking through "Rose colored glasses"... that is looking at what is reality.

    So listen, now I have to go, and do some Israeli fighting.. heh. So if I don't get back to you for a few hours that's why.

    Been a slice of heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Heaven? Well, better than of late for sure. And that's a good thing, V. Enjoy your workout.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just a quick note.

    volleyboy claims -

    "Nope... I don't criticize you anyone who criticizes the MB and points out the rabid nature of their politics. I criticize those who wrongfully criticize the administration and distort its policies and record."

    oldschool says -

    "no matter the policy, you criticize anyone that criticizes Obama, in pejorative terms no less."

    volleyboy, in reference to me, with zero explanation or references to alleged "derangement," a few days ago said -

    "I tried to reach out to the ODS crowd but there is just too much nuttiness there. I mean you can't talk rationally with these people. It's everything taken to the way too furthest degree. You should see the hatred and drivel now especially with their newest convert."

    Now, I'm only undergoing one 'conversion process' these days, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the president. :)

    But anyway...

    Oldschool is demonstrably correct in this instance. In fact, one need not even criticize the president to qualify for this treatment from our guest. Not that I care in the least what volleyboy1 thinks about me, but just for the purposes of establishing who has integrity here, I do believe this is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The overall thing we must not forget is that Egypt is now an Islamist country. That really says it all. No good will come of this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can certainly agree with that, Doodad.

      Delete
    2. And you know what the worst of it is Jay? Even if it hadn't turned out like it did and the MB had been defeated by all those fresh faced secular Facebook democracy seeking types, they'd STILL hate Jews and Israel. Sucks to be Egypt, man.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. And crowds would still publicly chant medieval, genocidal racist shit like "Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud!" If I were to post a series of diaries at progressive-left blog Daily Kos, asking the wonderful, self-proclaimed 'anti-racists' there when this would stop, how long do you suppose it would be until I was banned?

      36 hours? 48?

      Whenever Meteor "the Nazis were a blip" Blades next checked his email?

      Delete
    4. Morsi is an Islamist in a suit and tie who will soon be having tea at the White House.

      Delete