Posted on 01/14/2015 5:05:49 AM PST by Kaslin
When America was hit on 9/11, the world united around us. France just had its 9/11, and again the civilized world has come together, all except the United States. Where were America's leaders as the rest of the world united?
The reaction to Islamic terrorists killing 17 people in Paris in the name of their radical creed has been greeted with a very strange perceived need to deflect or just dismiss it in liberal political and media circles.
Most journalists tried to downplay or ignore Obama's failure to attend the huge Sunday "unity" rally in Paris, where 40 world leaders gathered in a show of support for France. While the New York tabloids mocked Obama, most national newspapers mentioned "World leaders link arms" and barely noticed the leader of the free world had stayed home to watch football games.
Even after the White House spokesman admitted it was an error for top American officials to skip the event, obviously in reaction to national and international outrage, still some newspapers buried it inside their papers like it was no big deal.
There were other distressing signs of liberal deflection. CNN International anchor Christiane Amanpour called the terrorists mere "activists" in her reporting on the shootings at the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo: "On this day, these activists found their targets, and their targets were journalists."
Amanpour was quoting one of the dead cartoonists, who said, "When activists need a pretext to justify their violence, they always find it." Words matter, especially to journalists, and this was the wrong word. Activists write letters to the editor, join a community organization or protest, volunteer for a political campaign, man a phone bank.
Men who terrorize by slaughtering innocent men, women and children are terrorists.
Even during an outbreak of terrorism, some leftists deflect, putting bizarre political spins on the events at hand. Some continue to insist that the terrorism du jour is caused by Bush's war in Iraq, or any other response to 9/11, like the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.
Or it's those Jews. It was amazing to listen to Jimmy Carter (who simply refuses to leave the world stage, even decades after the curtain fell) suggest the Jews and "the Palestinian problem" bore responsibility. BBC reporter Tim Willcox upbraided a Jewish woman saying Jews are being targeted in France, insisting to her that "many critics though of Israel's policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well." (He later apologized for a "poorly phrased question," which it wasn't. It was an inaccurately stated declaration.)
After the terrorist attack, liberal journalists worried about the "backlash" from the "far right" that opposes rapid immigration or the spread of aggressive Islam. On MSNBC, for example, Andrea Mitchell lectured the attacks would be "a challenge for France," a country "where immigration and the Muslim population has been under fire." The challenge is not to "react negatively and not to paint people with a broad brush."
The left also loves to smear Christians and Jews into the conversation about radical religion. On MSNBC, former Rolling Stone executive editor Eric Bates compared the mass murder in Paris to Jerry Falwell's lawsuit against the porno magazine Hustler. "This isn't just Islamic extremism. If you go back to the '80s, during the Reagan administration, when Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine for portraying him having, I believe it was drunken incest with his mother in an outhouse." How on Earth can you compare Falwell filing a lawsuit to the mass murder of 17 people in France?
The left passionately attempts to inflame the world against such slow-emerging, life-threatening crises as "catastrophic global warming" or fast-food menus without calorie counts. But when it comes to Islamic jihad, they seem oddly incapable of outrage or alarm. They just deflect or dismiss.
Alex, I will take
“What is the result of the fact
that the undocumented pRes_ _ent Obama,
and his docile, treasonous EXEMPT Congress (113th and 114th)
side with ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.
Over and over.”
No matter who wins or who loses, trouble always comes ‘round’
BTTT
His childhood must have warped him. He would have received mail addressed to "Master Bates".
The American people are (mostly) on the side of France; it's mainly our leaders who side with the terrorists.
Actually, there is truth in that, just not in the way the left sees it. Muslims respect (and fear) power. They have nothing but contempt for weakness. Bush's failure to quickly finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq has emboldened radical islam everywhere.
I'm surprised at Brent Bozell using this idiotic "world united" or "world community" rhetoric, although "Obama" did present a juicy target in this case.
"The world" does not exist as a political, religious, or ethical community. The planet is inhabited by mutually incompatible clans, tribes, and nations, whose normative interaction with one another is war, fueled by hatred and blood lust.
The poor Israelis are always bleating about a mythical "right to exist" guaranteed by an equally mythical "international community". A bunch of politicians taking a stroll through Paris followed by a mob of sheep has NO SIGNIFICANCE to the enemy (although a division of paratroopers followed by a mob with torches would).
Yes, "Obama" is a blockhead, or worse. But "the world" did not unite after this atrocity, because "the world" is a late 20th-century myth.
That's because "the job" was in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and it still is.
Bump!
Your assumption that there was a quick end is fallacious
I think that most knew that once the fruit basket was overturned, that considerable time, perhaps 50 years, would be required to develop normalcy.
History is a process, not an event. History doesn’t do short term
Yep. It is interesting, and quite tragic, to note how many parallels there are between Iraq/Afghanistan and the Vietnam war.
Bush had all the lessons of Vietnam before him, yet he repeated most of the old mistakes. Nice guy, horrible president.
You might be right, But Patton would disagree. And it didn't take 50 years to destroy Tojo and Hitler. FDR did it in 3 1/2 years. But then again, FDR knew exactly who the enemy was.
Please read my prediction, posted here on 9/13/01, about what Bush would do.
Well, in the case of Hitler, FDR had a little help from the Red Army, but your point is well-taken.
Imagine what Bush would have done with this.
Because the left and the islamics are agents of satan. Let's stop trying to psychoanalyze these people. Let's think in more basic terms. This world is quickly dividing into good and evil, GOD and satan. If you accept there are only 2 sides then a lot of this madness makes perfect sense.
Wow. Just wow. That was - for the lack of a better phrase - really something.
It's just that so many people, especially those on the left, including and especially the media, are still stricken with the malady referred to as color blindness.
know the word 'malady' was included but ....
never have witnessed color blindness by
anyone on the left. Confused, am and me too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.