The New York Times in reporting won't mention that an Islamic terrorist was arrested for plotting to kill people. That he's a terrorist and arrested. But not a peep about his motivation, ISLAM. They believe that if they are NICE to the Muslims that the Muslims will be nice to them. They are wrong but you can read an interesting blog about it all. What is MORE interesting to me are some of the intelligent comments about the whole fiasco.
You must remember that to many on the left, lies, outrageous demands, and a vision of the ‘other’ as evil incarnate, are business as usual. Whether believed or not, these are simply tools to gain power. Without any religious faith themselves, they simply see radical Islam as just another group saying or doing whatever gets them power. It always comes as a surprise to the David Rohde’s of the world that radical Islam sincerely believes everything they say.
The New York Times believes that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Radical Islam believes that the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. Those who share the Times philosophy will die screaming, “This can’t be happening! I don’t understand! We supported you!” Their executioners won’t bother to answer.
AND:
There are (rich) idealist and spiritualist people (half psychologist, half interested in esoteric matters), who say Obama to be enlightened (!) man, and “look at those bad other Presidents, just wishing to wage wars and being totally disinterested in environmental matters! They immediately showed their (evil) nature criticizing Obama’s peaceful and social attitude. (…). Himself did not expected to be awarded of the Peace Nobel Prize (”what an humble man”). (…). Maybe he doesn’t really understand the evil of others (Islam), but he is a human being like everyone else: maybe he just doesn’t know or he simply is a good and ingenious man”. And: “look, the World is really changing, a new era is really coming: for the first time the (usually evil and pride/arrogant) United States have a black President!”.
Now: those allegedly extra-intelligent people (psychologists) and extra-sensitive people (interested in aesthetic matters), don’t even take into consideration that one like Obama was endorsed by one like Khadafi; that he achieved nothing extraordinary as “black man” in USA, since USA was a tolerating and open society far before Obama started running for Presidency; that before him there was a BLACK – WOMAN, Condoleeza Rice, occupying a very high place in USA Government; that Obama isn’t even “a black man” but his mother was a white woman and his father a man from Asia, and an Islamic man; that Obama “peaceful talks” since he endorses so called “religion of peace”, being advised about it by an ISLAMIST(Moghaed); that Obama LIES about Islamic History, adulterating it, while belittling Western History and Civilization (which is instead the greatest Civilization – when it comes to human/women’s Rights – among others, even if no one denies it has to still improve); that Obama had his Campaign funded by United Arab Emirates (like the Campaign of Hillary Clinton, shortly, the Democratic Party has been funded by United Arab Emirates); that Obama’s social attitude is based on others’ money, not his own; that one can expect “humanity” and “ingenuity” by a private citizen like “me and you” but not from the President of United States of America; that without a war against Nazi now European were oppressed by the Nazi regime, and USA saved Europe, through an almost necessary WAR, from Hitler and friends; ….
And when it happens to let these “wise” and “enlightened” people reasoning about the above mentioned (realistic) topics about Obama, they will answer: “oh, but me I went not deeper into political matters. I just noticed Obama attitude and liked it, therefore I endorsed him” (well: congratulation for your superficiality! Weren’t you supposed to be a more intelligent and more sensitive person than the average?), and “oh, but you criticize Obama: what about other Presidents, then?” (I never praised other Presidents, I just state that it is crazy to state Obama to be an enlightened person, rather than a corrupted one – like others, if you like!), and “yes, Islam is like European Middle Ages – but what does Obama has to do with it?” (well: obviously “enlightened” people do not even know about their “most loved President’s” roots and speeches) or “Muhammad said women are inferior to men? I can’t believe an enlightened person like Muhammad said that! You must definitely be wrong!” (no comment. Psycho-aesotherical Masters/Fellows obviously do not have a very insightful knowledge of Islam and its boss – they let themselves be fooled by politically correct messages about Islam or Islamist apologetic messages).
Shortly: today being an idealist seems to be very in, while being a realist seems to be very out – I don’t know why an idealist do not get to understand that a realistic point of view doesn’t forbid to be an idealist, too. They should anyway be aware that being an idealist alone, isn’t different than being a child (having a childish and immature personality) and suffering of so called “magic thinking” – this is not enough: History (already) showed how many people had to suffer for one leader’s idealism only.
As Pat Condell said: not to forget, people voted Obama for changing, not for submitting! (journalists should remember this, too).
No comments:
Post a Comment