Romney and Obama: Identical Clones When It Comes To Israel

           From his previous actions, it was easy to tell that Mitt Romney is an Israeli lapdog, eager to stoop down and do anything his Zionist masters tell him to, before he made his most recent trip to Israeli yesterday. Even though Romney has told supporters that he would do “exactly the opposite” that Obama has done to Israel, in reality they do/will do the exact same thing. Both have supported giving Israeli billions of dollars to further their human rights abuses and illegal foreign occupation. Both have supported letting Israel attack Iran, even though Iran only wants the exact same technology that the U.S. and Israel already have. In short, both of them have let/will let Israel do whatever it wants to, and support them in any war crimes or terrorist attacks that Israel wants to commit.

          Am I surprised that Romney is in Israel, pandering to Israel, putting on a yamaka and visiting the Wailing Wall even though he clearly isn’t a Jew? No, I already knew that he was like 99.9% of American politicians, eager to please their Zionist masters for money and political support. I’m just letting everyone else know; in case there was any doubt. 

          The Christian Science Monitor reported that Romney wanted to highlight that “the administration has failed to stand behind allies,” (i.e. Israel).

          http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0729/With-Romney-visit-Israelis-worry-about-becoming-a-partisan-issue

          This statement is hilarious, ridiculous, and positively insane. Romney, and many other Republicans, have often criticized Obama for “abandoning Israel,” and “bullying Israel.” These statements do not reflect facts, but rather, pandering to Israel. Romney and Obama are simply playing the common election game “Who loves Israel the most?”

         

          Indeed, one of the things I hate about Obama the most is his constant political, economic, and military support for Israel. During his first term in office, Obama has:

          1. 2009 refused to prosecute Israel for its war crimes, terrorist attacks, and crimes against humanity during its 2008-2009 Gaza massacre.

          2. 2009 gave Israel $2.55 billion in military aid.

         

          3. 2010 refused to prosecute Israel for its crimes and murders against the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish boat that was part of a Gaza bound aid flotilla.

         

          4. 2010 gave Israel $2.75 billion in military aid.

                     

          5. February 2011 Vetoed a U.N. Resolution that called Israeli settlements illegal. By all standards of international law, U.N. resolutions, the Geneva Conventions, and major religions and political philosophies, the settlements are illegal.

           http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1111737/1/.html

          6. 2011 gave Israel $3.00 billion in military aid.

          7. Backed down from demanding that Israel have a settlement freeze. Israeli settlements are against international law, U.N. resolutions, and since they are stealing territory from the Palestinians, they are an act of war.

           http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-22/domestic-politics-produce-three-way-collision-at-united-nations.html#p2

          8. September 2011 Vetoed a U.N. Resolution to have Palestine recognized as a country, therefore oppressing the Palestinians by denying them their basic human rights.

           http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/what-ever-happened-palestinian-state-410482    

          9. (Projected for 2012) Plans to give Israel $3.05 billion in military aid.

           So I have no fucking idea why Romney is saying that Obama is “abandoning” Israel. He’s doing quite the opposite: cozying up with Israel to get money and political support.

          Furthermore, Al Jazeera reported that Romney “supported Israel's right to defend itself.”

          http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/201272917928694956.html

          This is also complete crap, and only further adds to Romney’s pathetic “I love Israel the most” charade, which is a very long charade. Israel, having ethnically cleansed a huge part of Palestine, and stealing that territory to make it a Jewish majority state, is not entitled to self-defense, because every inch of the territory it owns is stolen. An example to illustrate it would be like if your neighbor invaded your home and kicked out your family onto the street at gunpoint, so you get your guns and fight back, trying to retake your home. The neighbor can’t gasp to the police and say “I’m just defending myself and my home! He’s the home invader, not me!”

          Lastly, Romney displayed an abhorrent level of racism when he said the following BS:

          “As you come here and you see the [Gross Domestic Product] per capita, for instance, in Israel which is about $21,000 dollars, and compare that with the GDP per capita just across the areas managed by the Palestinian authority, which is more like $10,000 per capita, you notice such a dramatically stark difference in economic vitality. Culture makes all the difference. Culture makes all the difference,” Romney said, repeating the conclusion he drew from that book, by David Landes. “And as I come here and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.”

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-faces-palestinian-criticism-for-jerusalem-remarks-as-he-heads-to-poland/2012/07/30/gJQAr5FSKX_story.html

          He is belittlingly and demeaning Palestinian culture, saying that it’s the reason why their GDP and overall economy is lower than Israel’s. That is an insult to the millions of Palestinians who work so hard to provide for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is an insult to the vibrant and extremely strong Palestinian culture, which has survived over 7 decades of almost constant war. If Romney would stop kissing Israel’s ass for 2 seconds and look up the reasons why the Palestinian economy is so weak, he would find the following reasons:

          1. Israel constantly steals land from the West Bank and Gaza.

          2. Israel has repeatedly stolen coastal water territory from Gaza.

          3. Israel constantly builds up roadblocks and checkpoints that choke the West Bank’s economy.

          4. Israel periodically and randomly closes its 5 border crossings with Gaza, preventing workers, equipment and products from crossing.

          5. Israel constantly steals Palestinian economical resources such as water reserves and date groves, hampering the Palestinian economy.

          6. Israel constantly bombs and shells Palestinians civilians in Gaza.

          7. Israel has thousands of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of Palestinian children, jailed without charges, access to lawyer or healthcare, family visits and trials, (which they abuse and torture as well).

          In conclusion, Romney and Obama are one in the same when it comes to foreign relations to Israel. Their hideous and un-American support for this racist apartheid regime is equal. That is why I support Ron Paul and the Libertarian philosophy, who calls for a complete and utter end to military aid to Israel.

          Useful links:

         

          Washington D.C. based NGO that works to end the Israeli occupation: http://www.endtheoccupation.org/  and their other site: http://endaidtoisrael.org/section.php?id=379

          International Solidarity movement, (ISM): http://palsolidarity.org/

         

          If Americans Knew:  http://ifamericansknew.org/

          Donate to help Palestinians in need:  http://www.irusa.org/countries/palestine/ and http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=86

         (Photo is property of the Christian Science Monitor) 

Double Standard on "Terrorism" Continues

By now everyone has heard of the story of 24 year old James Holmes, who killed 12 people and injured 58 in a mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. One could write a whole essay on all of the different issues this shooting involved: gun control, mental health issues, family values, etc. But I’m only going to talk about one aspect of it, one aspect that only a few people are talking about, and one aspect that really annoyed me more than any of the other lame and stupid arguments made about the other issues.

          I’m going to compare that story, with another story that didn’t grab a lot of headlines at all, so I’ll explain that one in a little bit more detail because readers may not be familiar with it. 

          The other story is about 22 year old Ulugbek Kodirov, an Uzbek man who came over to the United States to study medicine at Columbia University. Kodirov was found guilty of threatening to kill the president, providing material support for terrorism, and possession of an illegal firearm. He was sentenced to 15 years.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/ulugbek-kodirov-columbia-university_n_1675830.html

          What do these two stories have in common? My problem with them is what they have in common. In a nutshell, the first story is a clear act of deliberate terrorism, yet no one is calling it terrorism, and the second story is an act of legitimate war, as outlined by humanitarian law, historical development of man, and common fucking sense, (but apparently that’s too much to ask people to have now in days), yet everyone is calling it terrorism.

 

          Before we get into this discussion, a simple definition of terrorism will help us understand why the media, and the vast majority of the American people, are so wrong in this analysis.

         Terrorism: 1. systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal, and

2. The act of terrorizing, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t). 

          Terrorism doesn’t have to be about politics, it sometimes is, but it isn’t always. Our media wants you to think that terrorism is always about politics, because that serves their narrative and political goals. But terrorism can be about religion, race, or in Holmes’s case, just because he was an asshole who thought he had a crappy life and wanted a lot of attention. Another definition, the one I like to use, simply says that terrorism is the killing of unarmed civilians for a purpose. Could be any purpose. 

          So clearly, Holmes fits both definitions of being a terrorist, yet NO ONE in the lamestream media is calling him a terrorist. Why? Because it would disrupt their narrative that only Muslims and Arabs are terrorists. So they just don’t mention it. They never mention his ethnicity or his religion. But if a Muslim or Arab did the exact same thing, people would be trolling all over the place “All Muslims are terrorists, Islam is an evil religion that produces violence and hate, Islam is the reason why he did this!!” And all the usual xenophobic shit. If a black person happened to do the exact same thing, people would be trolling “All black people are gangster thugs! His race is the reason why he did this! Black people are pathetic lowlifes!” And all the usual racist shit.

          But since it was a white Christian who did this, people say he was just “mentally disturbed,” a “lone wolf,” and “doesn’t represent true Americans.” 

          Now that we’ve established that Holmes is indeed a terrorist, let’s move onto the Kodirov case. He wanted to kill the president, a man who has the power to send the nation to war, has the power to send in elite military units, (like Seal Team 6), to anywhere in the world to kill anyone he deems is a terrorist. The president is the leader of this country, heck, one of his titles is the “Commander in Chief.” By all respects, a legitimate target of war if you wanted to fight against the United States. Then why are we calling Kodirov a terrorist, when he wasn’t targeting innocent civilians, he was targeting members of the government!

          Think about it, let’s reverse the scenario.  Say an American wanted to kill Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban. Omar has the power to send the Taliban to war, send in teams of Taliban soldiers to do a sneak attack. He’s their leader. By all means, a legitimate target of war. Would we call that American a terrorist? Of course not!

          This is the sickening double standard that I am so fucking tired of. Americans think that any attack on them at all, no matter what crimes they did to get people pissed off at them, is a terrorist attack. An attack on American soldiers, mercenaries, government personal, it’s all terrorist attacks according to them.

          But Americans are not doing this by accident, they are doing this on purpose to delegitimize a Muslim’s right to self-defense. I talked about this in my previous post. Many Americans look at Muslims as being sub-human, therefore, they do not enjoy the right to self-defense. So the U.S. can invade Iraq on false premises, set up a corrupt government, kill a bunch of civilians on purpose, rape them, torture them, etc etc. But that’s all fine for many Americans, nothing wrong with that, nothing terrorist related at all. But as soon as some Iraqis fight back against the illegal foreign occupation, killing Americans soldiers, not Americans civilians mind you, then the Americans get into a tizzy, calling these insurgent attacks “terrorist attacks.” 

          Let’s finish this up by getting back to Kodirov. He was going to attack the U.S. government because of the things that the U.S. government has done. He wasn’t planning on attacking U.S. civilians for what the U.S. government has done. That would be terrorism. Lastly, people are calling him a terrorist, when all he did was words, no action at all. He didn’t even wound or kill anyone. Yet, because he is Muslim, people are going around calling him a terrorist. And Holmes, who actually killed 12 people and wounded dozens more, is not a terrorist, according to the lamestream media and the majority of Americans. That’s fucked up, that’s really fucked up. 

          So, bottom line is: Holmes is a terrorist, Kodirov is not, he’s an enemy combatant. 

          The Young Turks actually put up a video that is talking about this very issue. I always enjoy watching this show. Here is the clip:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOqQKjEvjGU

         (Picture of Kodirov is from the Huffington Post).  

Defending the Brave

Current Events

Monday July 16^th, 2012

I came across this article a few days, dated from Thursday July 12^th:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/taking-up-rebel-cause-woman-trades-toronto-apartment-for-battle-zone/

It explains how a Canadian woman of Syrian origin, Thwaiba Kanafani, left Canada to go fight with the Syrian rebels against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, (the Syrian rebels rally under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, or FSA). She is an engineer and a mother of two. 

Now, it is common knowledge that there are several brave and selfless foreigners that are fighting with the Syrian rebels, but most of them are men from other Arab countries. I’ve never heard of a Western woman joining them yet; Kanafani is the first. After I was done reading the article, I thought “Wow this woman is really flippin’ cool. She leaves the comfort of a peaceful, 1^st world country to go and help people halfway across the world achieve freedom and democracy. She is not required to do this at all; she goes there on her own free will to help in a fight where she has no stake in whatsoever. She is the very definition of selfless because she has absolutely nothing materially to gain from this.”

What really disturbed me was when I read some of the comments on the article. Here is a few of them: 

“Good to know that Canada is NOT your homeland, now you stay where you are you've shown your true colours. You earn your living here  you raise your kids here & still doesn't feel this country to be your homeland -how ungrateful you could be. We don't need people with deranged mentallity to be Canadians. Our immigration system is broken it needs to fixed.”

“Don't come back ! I do not want my tax money ( Canadian Medicare ) to pay for your Syrian injuries. Syria.....your homeland......give me a break ! Why did you leave ? Go home.”

“Hopefully she bought a one way ticket and took her kids with her.  She was obviously welcomed in Canada, but has no loyalty to the country.”

“Hope she stays there forever.”

When I read these I literally had a WTF moment. How the hell can these people sit there and say such horrible things about this woman, who did something so dangerous that I bet NONE of them would ever have the courage to do so. They are the biggest internet trolls I have ever seen. They sound like they have something lacking in their lives, so they just get on the internet and take out their frustration on someone like Kanafani who did something so brave and self-sacrificing. I also suspect that there might be some racist reasons involved in this as well. It’s not for certain, because I cannot read their minds, but it certainly sounds like it. They’re calling her “not a real Canadian, a Canadian by convenience.” This echoes of the mindset decades ago of the British deciding that only white people could be British citizens. 

My three points about what they said are:

1.      Just because she goes and fights in a war that Canada is not involved in, that has nothing to do with her loyalty to Canada. The two things have no rational/logical connection to each other. That’s like saying “Oh, since the sky is blue, that’s the reason why this safe is steel plated.” She is going overseas to help people who very desperately need anyone’s help who is willing to give it. Even if she is not a front line combat soldier, she is an engineer, which is very valuable for a rebel army to have. Also, since she is a woman, she will be better able to understand and work with women civilians who have been caught up in the conflict. Good men will try their best of course but sometimes a situation needs a woman-to-woman approach to fix it, (like if a woman got raped by a Syrian soldier, she’d much rather talk to a woman about that than to a man). 

          In the past, when someone has helped somebody else fight against a tyrannical or oppressive government, that person is looked upon as a hero, a caring person. An example would be like the French soldiers who helped fight alongside the Americans against the tyrannical British government. Or the American soldiers who helped Europe fight back against the Nazis. Their service, their sacrifice in battle, was never, ever looked upon as being disrespectful or insulting to the country that they lived in. This concept is also portrayed in countless movies, video games, and books. Were the Americans doing disservice to America by helping to liberate France and Belgium? Of course not!!!

          She is not a mercenary; she is not getting paid to fight in this war. All of this is on her. She is a volunteer. Why is it that when a person volunteers to join the military of his/her county, he/she is “patriotic, brave, noble,” etc, but when another person wants to help people in another country, then suddenly that is dumb, ungrateful, or fanatical? Canada’s military is not in Syria, so she had no way of helping the Syrians if she joined the Canadian military. 

2.      I also read, on another article on the same story, that many posters called her a slut or a whore for joining the Syrian rebels. This is disgraceful to all women who have ever served in any military. Their libelous comments are only reinforcing the hateful stereotypes that women who join the military are just looking for men to sleep with. Maybe some of them are, no one knows because you can’t read all of their minds. But certainly not all of them are, that is an insult to the women who want to join the military to protect their country, make a better life for themselves, etc etc.

3.      One last point is this: In many of those comments they call Kanafani a “Wahabi/Salafi militant,” or a “Islamofascist.” These insults are within a larger problem, which is a lot bigger than this one post can cover. The problem is that many Westerners have this the paranoid xenophobic fear that all Muslims who take up arms to defend themselves and other civilians are without doubt Islamic terrorists. To them, Muslims are sub-human, and therefore, do not deserve the God given right that all humans have: to defend themselves and others who cannot defend themselves. These insults are only used to try and delegitimize the Syrian rebels. Are there radical Islamists fighting in Syria? Of course there is some. But does that have anything to do with the legitimacy of regular, ordinary Syrians who are fighting for their families, liberty and freedom? Uh, no.

             Radicals are always drawn to conflicts because in the chaos they can try and establish a foothold. You better damn well better believe that, for instance, if the U.S. descended into chaos, that there would be some white-supremacists who would take advantage of the situation and start to go around to kill African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims etc. There would be racists from all races, taking advantage of the situation.  

          These internet trolls are just stupid, spiteful people. Plain and simple. There’s no way around it. It is sad that some people have lost the ageless concepts such as honor, sacrifice, selflessness, and bravery in the face of tyranny. I guess those concepts are too higher levels for their pea brains. They see something they don’t understand, and then automatically call it deranged, idiotic, or morally wrong. They couldn’t be farther from the truth.

(Picture is from Thwaiba Kanafani's profile on Facebook).