Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I didn't get to hear the speech live, but I did receive a transcript of it and see the video after I got home last night. And I know I've been a real critic of Obama's for the last few months on many things. But that speech struck me as nearly perfect. He made a powerful argument for Enlightenment values.
The speech was historically informed, cast in an idiom that Muslims around the world can understand and called not only on Americans to recognize that Islam is more than extremism and violence, but on Muslims to recognize that America is more than an invading superpower.
There were two things I particularly liked about the speech. The first is that he mentioned the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953. It was that event, I am convinced, that led to the core of the conflict in the Middle East and between the United States and the Arab world. Had we handled that situation differently, the entire history of the region might well be dramatically better.
Second, I loved the ending, the mention of the golden rule as being common to all religious traditions. I would like him to have mentioned that it also lies at the core of secular ethics as well, but what he said was still powerful. It was a call to set aside religious differences and focus on those common elements found in all religions that help elevate mankind rather than debasing us.
I have a hard time imagining how that speech could have been written or delivered any better and I have a feeling that it could make a real difference in our relationship with the Muslim and Arab worlds. It's only a beginning, but it was as good a beginning as one could possibly have hoped for. Any thoughts from my readers?
Politics
Comments
I would like him to have mentioned that it also lies at the core of secular ethics as well, but what he said was still powerful.
I have great difficulty imagining that going over well in the Middle East. Hell, it would have pissed off half of the US (more than the speech already did, I mean).
Posted by: schism | June 5, 2009 9:59 AM
Given that the people living in that region need actions far more than words, and given the perfectly understandable mistrust there for the words of ANY American official, I'd say Obama's words were as effective, and as good for our interests, as any American's speech could ever be.
Did Obama really mention Mossadegh? The NPR commentators didn't mention that bit at all.
I did like his strong words of support for both Israel and the Palestinians. He sounded both sincere and knowledgeable, not just another timid hack reading from a script about a subject he knew nothing about.
It's SOOOO nice to have a President who can form complete sentences again. We an all stop missing Reagan now.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 10:02 AM
In addition to your observations, I got a kick out of the reference to holocaust deniers. But yeah, very powerful speech all the way around. Some of the reports from Islamic countries mentioned that listeners had expressions of disbelief on their faces.
Posted by: DarkSyde | June 5, 2009 10:08 AM
I didn't get a chance to hear the speech, but I did get a chance to hear some wingnuts trying their damnedest to conjure up some outrage about it. I listened, and tried to figure out what outrage there was to be had, but really it all boiled down to a disdain for attempting diplomacy without guns as the primary medium (oh, and that he said "holy Koran").
The parts I did hear sounded really good.
Posted by: TBRP | June 5, 2009 10:09 AM
I agree that mentioning secular values might upset a lot of people here and in the Middle East, but it is necessary to do so. Apostates of Islam, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, still face a constant very real possibility of being murdered. It's about time someone told those people willing to commit violence to prevent apostasy that they need to accept the fact that some of us don't believe and shouldn't have to.
Posted by: Schmeer | June 5, 2009 10:11 AM
I call it a success based on the reaction of the US neocons and the Israeli right wingers. If it pissed them off, it was right on target.
Posted by: Dogbert | June 5, 2009 10:17 AM
He didn't mention it by name, but there was a reference.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 5, 2009 10:18 AM
I'm embarrassed to admit I'm developing a man crush on the guy!
Posted by: rmp | June 5, 2009 10:19 AM
@Raging Bee
He didn't mention him by name, but I think it's pretty obvious who he's refering to.
From Obama's Cairo speech:
Posted by: The Science Pundit | June 5, 2009 10:25 AM
5 observations:
1) I've met my fantasy president in terms of speechmaking. Obama is what I've always dreamed all presidents would do, take on the task of being America's Historian in Chief and using his bully pulpit to promote our historical successes, ideals, and principles, while simultaneously abdicating the role of Pastor in Chief.
His accurate use of history and our founding ideals to base his arguments upon is music to my ears. The fact Obama can weave a relatively massive dose of religious rhetoric into his speeches to buttress his arguments rather than using such to pander to religious bigotries requires a level of genius I previously found unimaginable. This speech builds on his race and religion speech and a couple of others inbetween. I also like the fact that rather than using rhetorical devices to avoid his opponents' best arguments, like a good trial lawyer he takes them head-on - though with one exception (see #2).
2) I have yet to hear a good argument justifying the Western World supporting Israel's persecution of the Palestinians. Obama's argument that because Jews suffered in Europe, Arabs should accept Israel's right to exist and deny Palestianian's rights' to their homeland and rights to Jerusalem is a weak argument and quickly noted as such. This was quickly jumped on even by Arab college students and for good cause.
While I don't blame President Obama for maintaining the U.S.'s status quo support for Israel given he has zero political capital to fairly confront this issue; this is a critical factor regarding whether we'll turn the tide of Islamic extremism where our past and current policy failures can not be overcome with pretty words by a great rhetorician unless we take mesurable steps to improve the Palestianian's situation.
3) Obama repeated the false claim stated so often by Bush and Cheney that his biggest duty is to defend the American people. No, his biggest duty is to defend the American Constitution. An important teaching moment on the importance of the rule of law and defense of human rights is lost. He could have stated his second most important duty was to protect us, briefly elaborated on the first prior to launching into the second.
4) I liked his clear language about our willingness to invade Arab countries and take out those that harm our interests and how he argued that was in Arabs' interests as well. bin Laden now has a Western competitor in that neck of the woods able to recruit minds and hearts.
5) If I were an Arab, I would be extremely skeptical on whether America can maintain this change in policy given how much of an ideological flip-flop it is from Bush and our entrenched business interests, especially in energy (excepting Israeli policy). I'd be skeptical Obama's pretty words are those from a naive ideologue who means well but question whether Obama and his kind can survive and solidify this approach beyond his term in office. Long-term the educational swap is a good idea that will pay dividends down the road, but a small one we've already been doing to some extent.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2009 10:25 AM
It's about time someone told those people willing to commit violence to prevent apostasy that they need to accept the fact that some of us don't believe and shouldn't have to.
That's not the President's job, at least not now. Some sympathetic Congresspersons should do that. Make it look like a bottom-up change in attitude, not a top-down change.
Obama's argument that because Jews suffered in Europe, Arabs should accept Israel's right to exist and deny Palestianian's rights' to their homeland and rights to Jerusalem is a weak argument and quickly noted as such.
That's not Obama's argument, it's his explanation of why his country supports Israel. And no, he most certainly did NOT say the Arabs, or anyone else, should "accept" Israel's current treatment of the Palestinians. In fact, he explicitly acknowledged that Palestinians have legitimate interests and grievances that are not trumped by Israel's historical mandate.
Here's something Obama didn't say, but someone needs to say: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is not 100% unprovoked, but is, justifiable or not, a response to decades of terrorism carried out in the Palestinians' name. Terrorists kill Israeli noncombattants in the Palestinians' name, Israel has to respond, that response involves counterattacking in Palestinian communities, because that's where the terrorists tend to hide and base their ops, mistrust of Palestinians in general increases, and the Palestinians suffer as a result. This is what happens to people when terrorism is used in support of their cause.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 10:52 AM
A good solid speech, but he could have used a snappy opening line, like "the bombing begins in five minutes."
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | June 5, 2009 11:04 AM
Re Michael Heath
Ah gee, Mr. Heath is all bent out of shape over the beastliness of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Mr. Heath has not the least notion of what true beastliness is. For his information, he might consider the reaction of the late dictator of Syria, Hafaz Assad, when faced with terrorist activities emanating out of the City of Hama in Syria. Mr. Assad had the town surrounded by several hundred artillery pieces and subjected it to a 2 day bombardment, resulting in the deaths of some 20,000 people. New York Times writer Thomas Friedman referred to this incident as Hama Rules. If and when the Government of Israel applies Hama Rules to the Palestinians, then Mr. Heath will have something to whine about.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 11:10 AM
SLC:
You obviously have trouble with reading comprehension. There was no whine to MH's comment and your false outrage approaches that of Bill O'Reilly. Go back and reread his comment and use your English-comprehension skills, if you have any. Oh, you can also take the fallacy of "if they (pick your bogeymen) do something worse, then what I or my buddies do is fine" and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: Chris | June 5, 2009 11:37 AM
SLC, I do not understand the tone or content of your criticism of Michael Heath's comment -perhaps you could explain further. I saw no whining just the usual (from MH) careful and thoughtful analysis. More importantly, are you saying that the Palestininans must suffer much more severely before the world shows them any sympathy or acts to advocate improving their conditions? That Obama's speech seemed to be directed at honest and realistic adults is a huge improvement. That still further improvements in perspective and policy are possible and desirable seems to be a given.
M Duran
Posted by: mark duran | June 5, 2009 11:59 AM
Re Mark Duran
What President Obama, Mr. Heath, and Mr. Duran fail to recognize is that, in the Middle East, the law of the jungle prevails. The Israelis are semi-civilized but their opponents in Hamas and Hizbollah are nothing but savages, much like the late residents of the City of Hama. The only language they understand is the mailed fist. As former Secretary of State George Shultz once said, they're not even people.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 12:07 PM
As stated several times in the "barbarism switch" thread, it is the dehumanization of others at any time at any level that leads to, perpetuates, and worsens, inhumane treatment in all directions. M duran
Posted by: mark duran | June 5, 2009 12:13 PM
As Chris and Mark Duran pointed out, what SLC argues against in my previous post bears no relation to my argument.
Raging Bee - I think you make a strong rebuttal to my point regarding Obama tying the persecution of Jews in Europe to justifictaion of their nation-building in the Middle East. My point regarding Obama's argument justifying Israel's position was how his argument was digested at least by some Arab students. Your point is an excellent one, but perception too is important and here is how some took it: http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2009/06/obama-denounces-holocaust-denial-loses.html
Note that we also see a cloudiness of thinking in some of these responses we see amongst our Creationists in this country. So while I applaud Obama's not talking down to people, it sometimes leads to false perceptions. If I were helping vet this speech, I would have strongly argued against rhetorically following a note about the victimization of Jews in Europe (a Christian persecution) to Israel's right to territory mostly occupied post-WWII. It's a similar flawed analogy to our reacting to 9/11 by invading Iraq where Iraqi citizens died because al Qaeda attacked America from Afghanistan, the two bear little relationship to each other, which is why I think it's a weak argument.
I am obviously cognizant of the atrocities committed by terrorists against Israeli citizens, but also cognizant that two wrongs never make one right.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2009 12:22 PM
"they're not even people".
If you actually believe that, neither are you.
Posted by: Ktesibios | June 5, 2009 12:26 PM
As former Secretary of State George Shultz once said, they're not even people.
This is the part where you say you're kidding. Seriously, wtf?
Posted by: Stu | June 5, 2009 12:32 PM
As to the Israeli view of Obama, or more specifically some mixture of young drunk Israelis and American Jews in Jerusalem made the night before Obama's speech, SEE THIS from Max Blumenthal.
I think that some people need their allowance drastically reduced, both the American twits and the Israelis sucking on the foreign aid teat.
Posted by: natural cynic | June 5, 2009 12:40 PM
The President's speech seemed balanced and reasonable to me (bearing in mind I'm neither Israeli nor Palestinian).
The approach of dealing honestly and transparently still needs actions to back them up (bearing in mind, these actions can be undermined by extremist from either: Israeli, Palestinian, US or some other state/organisation, {either external to, and/or internal to, the respective players}, so care and planning for set-backs are crucial for success).
However I think it is certainly the first tiny step, on a very long (and possibly tediously recursive) journey leading to something better.
Just my $0.02 - DingoJack
Posted by: DingoJack | June 5, 2009 12:52 PM
Raging Bee,
Why couldn't it be the President's job to stand up for nonbelievers? He might spend too much political capital to do so, but I'm looking for anyone with the podium to make that stand.
If we had more of the grassroots approach you suggest it would still be an improvement on the current silence from Congress. I
f you had a grassroots movement wouldn't you try to recruit any big names you could get? Why not ask the President to support the idea?
Posted by: Schmeer | June 5, 2009 1:06 PM
So before the election it was racist to say Hussein Obama, but afterwards when he admits to a MUSLIM heritage it's suddenly okay. What hypoctits. Barack Hussein Obama - before and after the election.
No America is not a Muslim country, not yet anyway.
Posted by: Whitey | June 5, 2009 1:08 PM
"No America is not a Muslim country, not yet anyway."
Whitey, nobody said it was: were you trying to make a point?
Posted by: dean | June 5, 2009 1:13 PM
I liked watching how the speech was received in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they were translated into the respective languages. Especially liked the reactions when Obama quoted the Koran - the statement "to kill one man is to kill all of mankind, to save one man is to have saved all of mankind".
As for the stupidity talking points, the only one I've heard of so far is that Obama didn't mention democracy once in the speech ... which is false if you do a word search of it; even more false are the implications behind that statement when you read the usages of the word democracy in context.
Posted by: Umlud | June 5, 2009 1:14 PM
My point regarding Obama's argument justifying Israel's position was how his argument was digested at least by some Arab students.
Point taken (though you weren't very clear about that at first); but beyond speaking clearly and honestly, what could Obama have done about how others "digest" his words? He did his bit, and if this or that group misunderstand, misinterpret or misrepresent it, tough shit. There will be more opportunities to clarify the message.
PS: Whitey, you're an idiot. No one said "it was racist to say Hussein Obama" and you know it. We merely said it was racist to pretend the middle name was more significant than names like O'Reilly, Jindal, Ponnoru, Wurzelbacher or Schwarzenegger.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 1:30 PM
Whitey:
The difference lies in the intent with which one uses the President's middle name. Among the right-wing, it is very commonplace to refer to him simply as "Hussein Obama" or "B. Hussein Obama", thereby placing emphasis on the middle name. This is explicitly racist, given that the more obvious choice of "President Obama" or just "Obama" would suffice. Such right-wing use serves as a dog whistle to followers that Obama is "not one of us", foreign, dangerous - indeed, to paraphrase SLC, not even a human being.
It is also racist when you place the word "Muslim" in SCARECAPS.
Posted by: existentialdrift | June 5, 2009 1:31 PM
The speech was fantastic and rhetorically (beyond exceptions noted above) on point. HOWEVER, as a strong supporter of Obama during the election, I'm frankly sick of the fact that the only praise I can heap upon the President is for his speeches, not his actions.
People keep calling it an olive branch/outstretched hand to the Muslim world, but after 50+ years of foreign intervention and dropping bombs, rhetoric really isn't enough. To REALLY start an outreach, we need to end our wars, end our occupations, illegalize torture, prosecute the war criminals from the Bush administration, end the Drug War to give Afghanistan a shot at economic viability, etc.
As Mr. Brayton has so passionately and excellently covered in this blog, a lot of Obama's actions have not lived up to his rhetoric, in regards to due process, civil liberties, executive privilege, and such. So until strong actions are taken towards reconciling the Western/Islamic rift, I have to remain skeptical.
Posted by: Manu | June 5, 2009 1:42 PM
I'm a white, native-born American and I don't recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel acts as if it is the 4th Reich in its treatment of the Palestinians. Disgusting and shameful.
If they wanted to give the Jews a homeland after WWII, they should have carved it out of Germany and Eastern Europe, not Palestine.
Posted by: DrGonzo | June 5, 2009 1:45 PM
Dr. Gonzo: they already tried that (that's where those Jews used to live, remember?), and they learned the hard way that they weren't safe there. That's why they went to Palestine. A tragic mistake, costly for everyone in the long run, but it's easy to see why they did it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 1:49 PM
DrGonzo
I don't recognize DrGonzos' right to exist. By Mr. DrGonzos' logic, the USA has no right to exist because it was settled by European colonists who occupied by force land once belonging to Native Americans.
Re Stu
I'm not kidding. Former Secretary Shultz actually made such a statement in referring to homicide bombers.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 1:55 PM
Re Michael Heath
Mr. Heath, Mr. Chris, and Mr. Duran have claimed that my comment does not respond to anything that Mr. Heath said. Let me just copy and past a complete sentence from the formers' first comment below.
I have yet to hear a good argument justifying the Western World supporting Israel's persecution of the Palestinians.
I would argue that Mr. Heath, in this sentence, is asserting that the Government of Israel is behaving in a beastly manner towards the Palestinians, which I took some issue with. Therefore, the claim made by the three gentlemen would appear to be seriously in error.
However, I would also point out that when one lives in a tough neighborhood, one must be a tough guy and Israel lives in a tough neighborhood.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 2:06 PM
Obama said all the things I wish Bush had said 8 years ago, frank talk that's been overdue in the Arab world for much longer. And it's no surprise that the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh are exploiting their audiences' unwillingness to listen to whole speeches, cropping sound bites to suggest something ominous for those eager to believe the worst, oblivious to a very similar practice in Arab states to deflect attention from their own deficiencies. I guess Bush's idea of spreading freedom in the Middle East is an afterthought even to right wing media today.
I forgot the guy's name and the title of his new book, but someone was on NPR last week explaining his premise that Cold War competition by both sides greatly exacerbated the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially after 1967, with both the US and the USSR propping up authoritarian regimes just to keep their respective client states engaged against each other. Sure, Israel has been functionally democratic for its modern history, but that doesn't excuse the fact that we actively worked against democratic movements in nations such as Iran and Lebanon, among others, when our rule of thumb seemed to be that any flavor of fascist dictatorship was preferable to "communism."
Posted by: Jon Lester | June 5, 2009 2:10 PM
SLC:
It seems that your argument is that the terrorist acts of Hamas and Hezbollah justify even more horrific responses on the part of the Israelis. The logical extension of this is a state of continuous war leading to the extermination of one or all sides. While Israel's vaunted military has kept them in the plus column on body count, without foreign allies and considerable military and financial aid, Israel isn't likely to come out on top in the end of such a conflict.
existentialdrift:
Not racist - bigoted. Muslims are not a race. They are followers of a religion. But I agree otherwise, particularly that whitey is an idiot.
Posted by: chris | June 5, 2009 3:38 PM
Someone on MSNBC last night (Maddow? Olbermann?) had an extended explanation of how the Bush administration had signed some public document with Israel regarding West Bank settlements (the document was against them), while privately assuring Israeli officials that the US would not say or do anything about it. Until I heard that, I had been puzzled by Obama’s talk about saying the same diplomatic things in private as in public. It’s so refreshing to hear at least lip service to "honest" dialog and "straight" talk. Let’s hope he can follow through with it.
Posted by: Scott | June 5, 2009 3:44 PM
Oh, it's much more clever than that -- that line is also from the Talmud.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 5, 2009 3:44 PM
I had been puzzled by Obama’s talk about saying the same diplomatic things in private as in public.
I suspect Obama was also referring to the huge amounts of dishonesty and doubletalk on all sides of the Arab-Israel divide. (Just one example: pretending Israel is the biggest threat to peace when everyone is really more worried about Iran.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 5, 2009 3:52 PM
Re chris
I would harken back to my comment relative to Hafaz Assads' application of Hama Rules. Now, most folks would consider his actions excessive and over the top. However, as extreme as they were they were also quite effective. The folks in Hama who were perpetrating terrorist acts in Syria before 1982 have ceased their activities, having been taught a very expensive lesson.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 3:55 PM
Scott stated:
Nice catch Scott, that was one of the more important statements Obama made that went over my head while watching the speech until I heard Olbermann discuss it with Powell's ex-SECSTATE Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, on Countdown last evening.
Here's the clip. Not only did Bush's Administration position themselves differently than what Bush and Cheney communicated to Israeli leaders, they kept their own Administration in the dark. This is one reason why I claimed in my original comment post that the non-Israeli Middle East would be justified remaining skeptical about American intentions until they actually see years of consistent action out of us different than our policies since the start of the Cold War.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2009 5:05 PM
Strange, I always thought SLC was one of the smart ones...
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 5, 2009 5:27 PM
Re Azkyroth
When it comes to defending the State of Israel, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of Israel is no vice.
Posted by: SLC | June 5, 2009 5:33 PM
Dispatches friend Jon Rowe gets featured in Andrew Sullivan's blog earlier today. A worthy read noting some of the framers respecting not just various Christian denominations worthy of freedom, but expanding to the point of inclusiveness even for "Mahomitans". This post piles on to my first comment noting my admiration that Obama uses his bully pulpit to educate his audience on American history, principles, and ideals.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 5, 2009 5:50 PM
It was an excellent speech, especially given its reference to the overthrow of Mossadegh and some criticism of Israeli settlements.
BTW: I put another copy of the transcript online. It ought to load a little faster. See:
http://www.chris-winter.com/Digressions/Cairo.html
I scrubbed it pretty well and I think it's clean. Please advise of any mistakes. (I did find one mistake in the official version. Took my best guess at fixing that.)
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 5, 2009 6:34 PM
Yes, it was a very good speech. Obama is very good at making good speeches. I liked this, because it did engage Muslims in Egypt and elsewhere, in terms that they could relate to, without "talking down" to them.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | June 5, 2009 8:02 PM
The FRC's response is quite entertaining. They've decided to attack Obama's history by claiming he is ignorant, and pointing out the many lies and mistakes they found in his speech - but it doesn't take a lot of thinking, even without bothering to do any research, that the FRC's version of events is the lie.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 6, 2009 6:24 AM
SLC:
Presidictator Assad, otoh, was a staunch supporter of numerous terrorist organizations and considered (rightly) to be a fucking butcher. That he would deliberately kill 20,000 Syrians to "root out" the bad guys is not particularly surprising. The Israelis do need to have a strong military and be able to respond, proportionately to the attacks on their country. Proportionality is the problem. As has been amply demonstrated over the last several years, killing people in the West Bank has not stopped attacks in or upon Israel. I'm not sure how Israel should go about defending itself, but the current course is obviously a failure.
I know what Schultz said; I think the question was are YOU kidding about the Hamas and Hezbollah being "people"? Because if you think they are not people that would certainly make exterminating them a task akin to shooting or poisoning coyotes.
Posted by: democommie | June 6, 2009 7:13 AM
Re democommie
As has been amply demonstrated over the last several years, killing people in the West Bank has not stopped attacks in or upon Israel. I'm not sure how Israel should go about defending itself, but the current course is obviously a failure.
I would agree with Mr. democommie that the actions taken by the Government of Israel over the last decade have been ineffective in stopping Palestinian and Hizbollah terrorism. The question arises, however, as to the reason for this ineffectiveness. Is it because reprisals as a philosophy are ineffective or is it because the reprisals undertaken so far have been too timid. The example of Hama Rules would seem to indicate that timidity as an explanation is not to be summarily dismissed. The fact is that the application of Hama Rules in Syria was devastatingly effective because the terrorist actions of Islamic extremists operating out of the City of Hama ceased immediately after and have not reoccurred since. Whatever one may think of Hafaz Assad, who many in the Arab World consider to have been a bigger criminal then Saddam Hussein, he was extremely effective in stamping out terrorism in Syria.
Posted by: SLC | June 6, 2009 9:44 AM
SLC - And Israel has never, ever used blunt weapons of war to against Palestinian civilians and non-combatants? They've never shelled a neighbourhood? Never attacked hospitals clearly run by the International Red Cross? Never used terrible weapons such as white phosphorus?
Excuse me ... who are the terrorists again?
Both sides should be condemned, their leaders tried for war crimes and terrorism.
Such behaviour can be tolerated under no circumstances whatsoever, no matter who you are, what the circumstances of your history are, who your friends are or what the other side may or may-not have done. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES.
We should not defend one side or the other. we should defend justice! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 10:24 AM
SLC - Oh BTW is just me or does:
Sound similar Herr Hitler stamping out the 'Jewish threat' to the Greater German Reich in Warsaw? But I'm sure you'd condemn that too (with similar faint protestations)!
"Excuse me weeping walrus for stamping on your chest!" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 10:44 AM
Re Dingojack
The comparison with Hitler is seriously in error. There was no "Jewish threat" in the Greater Reich; this was a trumped up charge by Hitler to justify his actions and had no basis in reality. On the other hand, the Islamic extremists operating out of Hama were a definite threat to the Syrian Government as they were carrying out bombings and assassinations, especially in Damascus.
Further, the Israeli actions are almost always in reaction to terrorist activities by Islamic extremists in Hamas and Hizbollah. As Mr. democommie has correctly pointed out, the effectiveness of these reactions leaves much to be desired.
Posted by: SLC | June 6, 2009 11:17 AM
In response to your first paragraph, the imortal words of Dorothy Parker come to mind: "Oh - How can you tell?".
Second paragraph, "...almost always in reaction...". So there are unprovoked atacks that kill and maim civilian non-combatants, presumably to punish the population as a whole for 'attacks', in order to 'sent a message'? Is this correct?
Also one wonders, with which part of 'under no circumstances', are you having difficulty?
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 11:32 AM
Re Dingojack
If a group of religious extremists were setting off bombs in Melbourne or Sydney, I suspect that Mr. Dingojack would consider them a threat to public order.
Posted by: SLC | June 6, 2009 3:22 PM
SLC - Bombs going off in the streets would certainly be considered a public threat. It has happened before (on a minute scale). In this case, the blame was placed on a two members of a 'terrorist organisation' on the say-so of an unreliable police informant. When the unreliability of the informant was revealed. the bombing charges were substituted for other trumped up charges. It took years, and a Royal Commission to free the jailed men and quash the charges.
So I wouldn't jump to a conclusion, nor swallow the 'official story' until it was independently proved.
That explosions happened can't be denied, but who set the bomb? What (or who) was the target? What were the motives? &etc. "Sometimes the best way to solve a crime is to ask yourself a simple question: 'qui bono'".
Also, I think you are labouring under the false assumption that I completely disagree with you, in fact I largely agree. What I am arguing is not to kid yourself into believing that one side is 'wholly evil' and the other 'wholly virtuous'. Both sides should be examined without fear or favour, and held accountable for their crimes. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 3:54 PM
SLC - I'm not quite sure just what you're saying here, and you ducked democommie's question. So let ask you flat out:
1. Do you agree with Shultz that Israel's opponents in Hamas and Hezbollah are "not even people"?
2. Do you agree with what Hafaz Assad did in Hama? I know you say it was effective, do you think it was right?
3. Just what do you think Israel should do to stop terrroism?
Posted by: Taz | June 6, 2009 4:10 PM
SLC: You disgust me.
That is all.
Posted by: Andrew | June 7, 2009 3:36 AM
SLC@16
As former Secretary of State George Shultz once said, they're not even people.
I think the Nazis had thoughts along those lines regarding the people they exterminated.
Are you really such a bigot, or are you just trying to act like one?
Posted by: Eamon | June 11, 2009 9:02 AM