Obama Should Have Called Paris Market Attack What It Is: Anti-Semitism

https://www.commentarymagazine.com

The house journal of American neo-conservativism, Commentary, published an excellent editorial on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist atrocity.

Let me put aside the obsession with anti-Obama point scoring that suffocates any political dialogue in the American mainstream today (and for which Obama himself is not entirely blameless) and point out that this article is actually measured, nuanced and reasonable. The sentence that I have boldened is a fine rebuttal to the bigots, neo-Nazis, isolationists and exceptionalists who are crawling our of their holes on both sides of the Atlantic. This conservative commentary makes a strong point that "political islam" (I prefer Chris Hitchen's usage of "islamofascism" which identifies this sick ideology more succinctly) is a serious problem and that it has tens of millions of adherents. As a liberal, I believe this needs to be said, of course with the rider that tens of millions is still a small minority of a religious grouping that numbers a quarter of the world.

Unfortunately Commentary in subsequent articles spoils this "muscular liberalism" with all sorts of mumbo jumbo and snake oil. Commentary sometimes tries to make serious points, with clever, well thought out arguments. But it's also a business, and the business needs to lick up to its customers - the fratboys, armchair generals, racists, exceptionalists and just straight crazy people who now form up such a large percentage of American conservatives (at least as large proportion of American conservatives fall into the "swivel-eyed" camp as muslims are islamofascists).

So Commentary can't stay measured and rational for long: soon we hear about how the "liberal" press are turning muslims into victims. How liberals are refusing to say "terrorism". How liberals are being anti-semitic because they are not condemning the killings of Jews. How liberals this, and liberals that…. yes, the nuance is gone, the culture war is back and we are back here again.

Commentary is comfortable to be in alliance with the worst kinds of conservatives. If any group is responsible for giving irrational, hate filled ideologies house room and tolerance, it is that of mainstream American conservativism which almost uncritically tolerates puerility, ignorance and obscenity from many others who claim the moniker "conservative".

Moderate conservatives tolerate and enable extremists and hate-pedlars. This is not the same on the other side, or certainly not to the same degree. The Left is full of civil wars and internicine debate (rightly in my view given the tolerance for too many leftists of men who throw acid into the faces of little girls for the crime of wanting to go to school). Liberals and leftists exist in a constant state of civil war and extremists are forever called out by moderates. Not so on the Right. Conservatives give each other a free pass, and the more moderate the conservative, the more of a free pass he grants the others.

Let's see what we get on PF for example as the earliest conservative responses to a murderous terrorist atrocity against liberal secular French journalists in Paris:

First we get the "Eurabia" glee at the massacre. In spite of massive solidarity within Europe and France for its SECULAR values, we get the cheap taunting that Europe is on the verge of being some sort of ninth century caliphate:

Then we get the Gun Lobby dishonesty (as if any serious liberal EVER argued that gun control would defeat terrorism) and their impulse to justify school massacres in America by pointing to terrorism in France:

Then we get the "liberals are cowards and traitors line" with the lie that liberal media would not discuss "islam" (of course referring to the European media in the context of a European outrage would be too difficult):

Then we get the troll-style ecstasy at dead liberals in the French capital, a kind of Westboro Baptist Church abuse of victims of terror:

Then the routinely illiterate contribution that underlines the quality of the ideas being propagated:

Then, in case the Declaration of Independence was in your head and you were haunted by Tom Paine's words that the cause of America was the cause of all mankind, we got this rebuttal to the Founding Fathers:

And finally the justification to wage war against a quarter of the world. Along with their fifth columnists - liberals

Of course that's the Right for you (and all conservatives can take the rap for this because there's rarely a "moderating" voice defending the kind of nuance that the neo-cons occasionally go in for). The nuance, balance, measure and reason doesn't last long, once the boys of the American right turn their venom onto "liberals". Quickly, an attack on liberal France and its strong values of republican secularism, is twisted into an act of collusion between liberals and muslims. In time honoured fashion, in the "always blame the victim" style of propagandist Dr. Goebbels, the Right breathtakingly turn an attack on liberal secularism by bigots into an attack on them, by liberal secularists. Never mind the facts. The real culprits of the attack on French liberal, humanist, secular republican values, were liberal humanist, secular republicans. We saw the same thing when Brievik massacred social democrat children and many in the US blamed it on European liberalism. Why is it so hard to see these agent provocateurs in our midst? This is the real fifth column in Western society.

The facts are of course that islamofascists attack muslims first and liberals second. The ranters of the American right are their de facto allies.

Charlie Hebdo is now up and running again due to the solidarity of the European liberal press and is housed in the offices of Liberation, the left wing French newspaper (putting all its employees at risk). Liberals world-wide have put their names to acts of solidarity with Charlie. Liberal newspapers (at least in Europe) have printed condemnations of these attacks over and over by many, including muslims. Liberal newspapers have questioned the tolerance of many muslims for acts of terror against "blasphemy".

The fact is that in the West it is always liberalism that is the target of islamic terror - cosmopolitan and internationalist New York, multicultural London, hedonistic Bali, gay friendly Sydney. It is liberalism which the islamic extremists despise, not the musings of armchair generals in American suburbia, trailer parks and third rate colleges.

It is no surprise to see conservative dishonesty. Where are they in the real wars (apart from those who just like killing brown people, even the military is largely full of nation builders who have enormous empathy with the muslims who are dominated by extremists in their midst)? At the end of the day islamofascism is not the conservative's enemy. Liberalism is their enemy. Liberalism which opposes their conservative religious superstition, which calls out their conservative misogyny, which flushes out their conservative view of race and nation (isolationists and exceptionalists), which exposes their ignorance (the hatred of learning as some sort of liberal corruption). It is liberalism that conservatives detest more than anything.

Islamic terrorists are a boon to this kind of American and European conservative, they are kissing cousins with shared values. Ask both groups about their attitudes to gay people, women's rights, abortion rights, crime and punishment (severed hands, heads and other things), or even evolution. There is no difference. Each group of these extreme conservatives, American, European, Saudi, Yemeni…they act as provocateurs for the others. They are complicit in their relentless lifelong war against liberty.

Scratch the surface of the Commentary article (read what their readers think) and you will see that those nice reasonable conservatives carry a lot of nasty fellow travellers. The reasonable ones tolerate the bigoted ones. They are silent when the hate mongers start to rant in their ignorance. In these days when Europe is standing up for its French republican values, values of secularism, reason, tolerance, nuance, diversity…all types of conservativism is less and less relevant. What is needed is a muscular liberal response. To really engage in that - and Commentary does have some impulsive instincts in that direction - neocons need to ditch the stupid, ignorant and hateful that drag their publication into the mire. This was after all once a publication to which George Orwell contributed.

 

The one you missed out there is the attitude to the Muslim policeman who died defending Charlie Hebdo, or rather according to some he didnt!

Quite possibly the most mean spirited comment I have seen.

 

A for effort but the Charlie Hebdo massacre is going to be a huge support for the right. People who ramble about how it's the conservative's fault as jihadists are executing leftist satirists are begging for a schism in their ranks.

The left as usual is all talk, they will blame the right and offer the same vague playbook and no one will feel safe in using it.

 

Good post. Pretty spot on.

 

You are right. This one is a particularly vicious comment. Instead of seeing this policeman's act as a denunciation of the terrorist's claim to speak for all muslims, this post DOES THE WORK OF THE TERRORISTS FOR THEM by denying the significance of one of the defenders of the French rule of law and liberty being muslim.

This man (Ahmed Merabet) rushed to the attack he knew to be of a terrorist nature, on a bicycle, and was murdered in cold blood for doing his duty as a policeman. What kind of filthy, evil mind would deny the label of "hero" to such a man? And yet there will be many, particularly in America, who do just that.

But let's ask who benefits from such an analysis? Cui bono? As Cicero asked.

If Ahmed was a heroic muslim defending the rule of law and freedom of speech in secular France, whose narrative does that hurt?

The answer of course is that it hurts the narrative of both the terrorist, and the islamophobe Western conservative. The terrorist wants to see Ahmed as a traitor to islam and the hatemonger conservative wants to see Ahmed as a fifth column, whatever the facts. Both hate Ahmed. This underlines their essential alliance. The real traitors are clearly revealed.

Who was Ahmed Merabet?

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/20...aque-de-charlie-un-homme-bon-et-juste_1177106

He was described by his colleagues as good and righteous. He came from an Algerian family, grew up in France. "He was a true muslim who wore a uniform to protect his fellow citizens" said Pascal Popelin, member of parliament for the Seine Saint Denis district and who met Ahmed in 2006, "I was struck by this young man's passion and motivation, who truly desired to become a policeman and serve his country".

There are many, many tributes on the web. Conservatives do not want to hear about a brown skinned muslim acting as a hero. On the contrary, they tolerate it when their colleagues disrespect such a man. Where is the principle? Where is the integrity on the Right today?

 

You shouldn't confuse an accusation that the Right "aid and abet" the terrorists with analysis that this act if the fault of Western conservatives. Western conservatives don't have such power. This incident is the fault of the terrorists, pure and simple. Nowhere did I make any other case. The backlash, should there be one, should be measured and rational and target islamic terrorists. The point that the Commentary article is making should be explored by sensible liberals and conservatives. But there are too many culture warriors, neo Nazis and bigots on the Right and not enough courageous conservatives to face them down. Thus the conservative response has been inadequate - particularly in the USA. In Europe conservatives like Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel have risen to the challenge but in the grand scheme of things these people have to be referred to as "liberals" in this context. Farage, Le Pen and the shock jocks in the US are fanning the flames.

 

A bit of an inconvenience then that the people who died in the initial attack were left wing. The left is all talk even when provoking Islamists and dying for it they are all talk!

 

It's hardly surprising state collectivists are mocking and impugning humans who are instinctually rising up against a growing, ideologically bound murderous threat (humans they condescendingly label 'right-wing'), than they are of a growing, ideologically bound murderous threat rising up against Western culture.

Quite simply, leftists are far more fearful of the potential for these events to instigate an organic insurgence of "right-wing" governments, than they are of Islamic terrorism.

In essence, it's Palin and the Tea Party all over again.

 

Even less surprising is these arrogant, morally and intellectually 'superior' elitists believe the unwashed hoi polloi are too stupid to recognize it.

 

The attack on the Charlie Hebdo office was an unforgivable atrocity, but what the Commentary piece doesn't recognize is what Ron Paul calls blow-back from continued Western meddling in Mid-Eastern affairs, including the NEOCONSERVATIVE-INSPIRED AND ORCHESTRATED Shock and Awe and occupation of the totally innocent and blameless people of Iraq, which was more than an unforgivable atrocity, but an abomination which Americans with their heads in the sand still fail to acknowledge.

 

No to think so is to miss the point, this was not an attack on the politics of the West or the policies. Charlie Hebdo stood against all of that. This was an attack to silence free speech simple as that. These religious nutters want to tell me and you what we can and cannot say.

 

Liberal values and republican action are the fuel for ideological arson. The liberals coddle and accept, the republicans cudgel and reject... both are exploited. You are attempting to insinuate nuanced purpose to a blunt and simple problem. You imply alliance between conservatives and devout Islamists due to commonalities in their religious based intolerance to social values liberals strive for, and it is a false narrative. I could ask, do you think devout Islamists hate the idea that you would lay with another man more than I would send occupying forces in to kill and torture in Muslim holy lands?

The truth is that you, like many, view the world through a manufactured prism of left and right, when the truth is our offense boils down to a very very simple metric.

Rejection of submission to Islam is an act of dominance over it. At the end of the day, this is Jihad. This is the struggle. Islam itself demands even those who do not accept Islam adhere to Islamic principals. This is why making cartoons of Mohammed results in murder. So going back to your false paradigm, the liberal says "well... just don't do that... why would you WANT to offend them?". The conservative response is "Because the demand that I not is diametrically opposed to freedom." a principal of classical liberalism you on the left seem to have forgotten. You have lost the plot in the fury of trying to "win" from my perspective.

The truth is, conservative or liberal doesn't matter at all. It is the minutia we engage in because it is a medium in which we are all comfortable, if not consumed by. The question is will we submit, or will we struggle? Funny that... struggle and Jihad.

The uncomfortable truth is, since you went Godwin in your opening post, Muslims the world over, by in large, look at the Charlie Hebdo massacre the same way the German people around Dachau labor camp avoided the horror in their midst. They dislike being made to look bad, but what did the unbelievers expect would happen making fun of the prophet? They dislike but accept the hardcore in their midst because they exact a social justice they are conflicted over... as the Koran is not unclear about such. That is why there is little outcry except for the loss of innocent life surrounding such events, which is a great crime... but when an individual is murdered who is not innocent in offending Islam... there is silence. When people are hurt getting to that specific target, it is a shame or Gods will depending on where you fall... and when innocents are targets because of association with an organization which offends Islam... whether or not they are innocent defines whether or not you are an "extremist".

It is not a question of whether or not killing a cartoonist is extremist... it is not. It is how far out your ideology allows you to extrapolate guilt by association. Point blank, Islam is incongruous with a free society. The Koran will never have a flexible position on some subjects, and Islam is not "practiced" as a religion... it is a complete way of life.

[video=youtube;tpeIS25jhK4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeIS25jhK4[/video]

 

Islamic terrorists were slaughtering innocent Westerners, Christians, Jews and ideologically 'impure' Muslims long before the response to 9/11.

 

I totally agree with the left. The folks at Charlie Hebdo were asking for it and got what they deserved. Well, perhaps a little over the top but they certainly got what they should have expected. If anyone is to blame it's the folks at Charlie Hebdo, the Jews, and conservatives. If anyone is innocent, it's the Muslim terrorists. And, the poor guys paid with their lives. Someone will have to answer for that now, won't they?

Of course, I'm being sarcastic but the left needs a little moral support for their idiotic positions.

 

a "muscular liberal response"?

Is this an oxymoron?

Modern liberalism is becoming a parody of itself; it doesn't have the muscle to fight against Islamic militancy on its own. Rather, I should say that this isn't really a strictly liberal quality, but a Leftist quality.

The Left has this almost pathological need to create victim groups to play savior for, and what better victim group for the Left than non-European, non-Christian, non-Capitalist people from the Middle-East? The irony here is that these people from the Middle-East are against almost everything the Left stands for and have more in common with the Right. In spite of this the Right are the biggest opponents of militant Islam and Islam's loudest critics because a quality of the Right is conservatism. The Right wants to conserve the civilization and sees militant Islam as a greater threat than the Left right now.

Muslims as a minority are happy to accept the protection and hospitality of the Left for now, when they are a vulnerable minority, but just wait until their numbers reach 10%, 20% of the population or greater. If nothing changes, the fringe radicals among them will become more assertive and more aggressive, this will prompt the moderates to quiet down and fall in line if only out of fear. And then all of the sudden, the Left will realize that this cub they have been coddling has turned into a full grown Lion that has no use for them.

 

And lets take a look at what the religious right has to say about the massacre.

From the Catholic League

http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/

and from The American Family Association

And in Putin's Russia, Orthodox Christians respons

Much of the Religious right has an underlying sympathy for restricting freedom of Speech and the Press in the name of religion. They would bring back Blasphemy laws if they could.

 

It wasn't that long ago that there were riots in France by Christians over the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" to the point where they burned down the movie theater showing it. The Archbishop of Paris at the time stated "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother."
And of course we have Christians here in this country that are ready to blow up Planned Parenthood clinics, or murder doctors who perform Abortions, which are legal.

The problem isn't Islam, it is the mindset of religious fundamentalists and fanatics of all religious persuasions that is the problem.

 

Pretty much. And giving credit where credit is due, your attack on conservatives only used the words racist and Nazi one time each. I'm guessing that's the definition of liberal tolerance.

 

Why post the exact same post under two different threads? This one claiming the conservatives of "The Muddled and Contradictory Response of the Right to the Charlie Hebdo Terrorism", and another saying "Obama Should Have Called Paris Market Attack What It Is: Anti-Semitism". Yet you want to talk about Muddled and Contrary response.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...d-paris-market-attack-what-anti-semitism.html

Strange how you liberals only seem to see what conservatives say, but ignores what their fellow liberals say. I guess it slipped your notice that the liberal press has condemned France for allowing Charles Hebdo to print his cartoons. You glossed over the fact that the President refused to address the attack as what it was. A Muslim Terrorist attack. You missed that the Former head of the DNC actually stated that the attack was not a Muslim Terrorist attack, and one of your fellow liberals on this board supported that sentiment.

Now, let's talk facts. I will try to keep this simple, so that even you can follow this. A Muslim is someone that is adherent to Islam. A terrorist is a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. In case you do not know, Terrorism is the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. Now, let's put that together, and see if it applies to the Charles Hebdo attack. The attackers claimed to have been motivated by their adherence to Muslim Sharia Law that calls for the death of anyone that insults the Prophet. The attack was designed to prevent others for violating Sharia Law. Therefore, the attack was a textbook definition of a Muslim Terrorist Attack. So, why do liberals refuse to admit the facts? Could it be because of Obama's speech he to the UN General Assembly in 2012?

Excerpt from:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

So, when the terrorists ensure that the future does not belong Charles Hebdo, the liberals, including Obama can not claim it to be terrorism. Otherwise he would be seen as condoning terrorism.

By the way, Charles Hebdo is not Jewish. The Publication has made fun of Jewish in the pasts. So, obviously the attack is not anti-symmetric.

Now, about your statement that my comment:

You said, “Then we get the Gun Lobby dishonesty (as if any serious liberal EVER argued that gun control would defeat terrorism) and their impulse to justify school massacres in America by pointing to terrorism in France:”

To be honest, I have not figured out how to tell a “serious liberal” from a non-serious liberal. All of you seem loony to me hence my calling you the loony left. Your posts have not done anything to change that fact.

Please, tell me the difference between these terrorists, and your everyday criminal element. Granted the motivation might be different, and the event might be more spectacular. But the result is basically no different. They use firearms in the commission of a crime. If the gun laws in France can not keep these terrorists from getting weapons to carry out their attacks, then how can they keep a petty criminal from getting a weapon? If these laws are not to keep criminals from getting weapons, then what are they for?

 

I wasted time reading through that drivel twice and saw nothing that suggested that Obama should have called the Paris attack "Anti-Semitism". Besides, when did the POTUS become the world's protector of semites (Jews and Arabs)?

 

"Islamofacism is a false construct.

 

So is Islamophobia.

 

So what happened here? Some Mod changed the title of the thread so that it doesn't make sense any more?

 

I just heard that Muslims believe all non-believers are considered combatants by Jihadists. They offer no quarter to civilians.

 

How much quarter did the Christian and Jewish Terrorist's Shock and Awe bombing give the innocent people of Iraq? Seems that lots of Christians and all Neoconservatives believe that every Muslim is a combatant.