The Islamo Arab CRIME on the 6,000,000 holy innocent victims of the [real] HOLOCAUST
It seems that there's serious desperation on the parts of Arab racist & Muslim fascist propaganda machine, wether originating from 'Palestinian' Pallywood or using the Arab "palestinians" to further the radical Jihadization of their people by the false perception of being the "victim".
Not so long ago it was the usual tirade of terminology like: "massacres", translation, each time the Arab Palestinian butchers (in the name of bigoted Islamism and and/or racist Arabism) failed, or rather succeeded in causing civilian casualties, the Zionists are automatically blamed for the deaths, the higher the civilian casualties, higher is rated their propaganda, such "massacres" have been orchestrated for years.
Then it grew to the term "genocide", it doesn't help how careful Israelis are to minimize civilian casualties by notifying civilians to leave and by risking young soldiers' lives in going door to door on a selective mission to root out terrorists, Israel was, still is, blamed for Palestinians dirty tricks to cause casualties, seeing that the term "massacre" is no longer "fresh", the "genocide" slogan started to appear more and more on 'Palestinian', Islamic mainstream media.
The latest "bombshell" they came up with, all in an attempt to "shock" us is shouting: "Holocaust", translation, Israel's fight against Arab Muslim genocidal campaign in a clear set out goal of total annihilation, is branded so "atrocious", labeling that unique crime title on cowardice (their powerful weapons, which Israel does NOT have are the women and children they hide under) Palestinian (or Hezbollah) lost battles.It entails a few fascist points, First: it seeks to dramatize the fallen as if it is not a battle but a "cold blooded campaign", second: it seeks to diminish the uniqueness of that most outrageous crime in history, that of WW2 (where there was a clear plan to erase an entire creed from the face of the earth, there were no attacks from Jews upon Germans, nor were there any "battles" between the Nazis and all the 6 million or the 1.5 Million Jewish kids slaughtered only for pertaining to a certain origin), third: it seeks to hurt feeling of ALL Jews in the world.
Why? You ask? because they hate, because their hatred of the "other", in particular of the one that is neither all Arab nor all Muslim but pluralistic democracy (though primarily a shelter for Jews seeking refuge), this tiny innocent "entity" in the middle east is too "different" from the Arab Muslim reign of racism, bigotry.
The only silver lining in it is that, they have used up all our sensitivity by now, there's no room for more drama since they have pretty much "used" it all, including the ultimate word though so ridiculously in even mentioning it on their desperation in between their lost attacks on innocent Israelis.
By Earl Ofari
http://www.huffingtonpost.com
I'm starting to suspect we've all missed the real story behind Barack Obama's leadership style. His recent actions may not have been driven by calculation or centrism, as most people thought, but by something else. He may have a core value that's new to our political process -- one that exists on a different plane, grounded in a web of personality, spirituality, and culture.
I had to think back many years -- and many thousands of miles -- before I remembered where I'd seen his kind of style before:
Japan.
When I did some work there nearly twenty years ago I encountered some of the same traits we're seeing in Obama now: The urge for consensus. The courtesy toward all parties, no matter how strong the disagreements. The nearly-holographic quality of appearing different to different observers. The centeredness and self-control.
It may be coincidental. Or it may be the result of growing up with Hawaii's Pacific Rim influence. But Obama's management style resembles the classic Japanese model. And, at least historically, these haven't just been behaviors. They're living embodiments of a spiritual perception which says that all humanity -- all existence -- is interconnected and equal.
The operative word, the core value behind this behavior, is unity. Unity means preserving the integrity of a social group. Where elections and debates emphasize process, and policies focus on outcome, unity creates an emphasis structure. That's unfamiliar to us.
People who value unity will always choose structure over process, or even outcome. If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. And while he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself.
Obama's been frustrating observers across the political spectrum lately. Progressive bloggers are debating whether he's driven by cynicism or centrism, while the rightwingers at Human Events claim there's a "Secret Plan Behind Obama's Move to the Right!"
They're all missing the point. He's not moving to the Right. His political architecture isn't built on the old foundation of Right vs. Left -- or on Right vs. Wrong, for that matter. It isn't even binary. When it comes to policy he inclines toward the progressive position, but he's not thinking in terms of "winning" or "losing." His goal is group unity around the best possible realistic outcome. That means assess the situation, get what you can, then move to bring the parties together around a new consensus.
We can speculate on why Obama might be driven by unity. Family history? Community organizing? Christianity? That Pacific Rim upbringing? We can't know for sure. But if the model's right Obama's highest loyalty will always be to the nation as a group, and he'll sacrifice partisan interests to preserve its cohesion. He won't get overly attached to any specific policy position. In the end, he'll make his assessment about what he can get and then default to the unifying position.
He won't "bring the fight to the enemy" where the GOP is concerned, either. In fact, he doesn't necessarily even see an enemy -- just fellow group members with whom he must eventually reconcile. He will be able to inspire and lead -- but he won't be able to inflame and arouse. He will never be a firebrand. (Interestingly, despite his ability to excite a crowd he struck me as cool and analytical -- "clinical" was the word that came to mind -- the one time I saw him in close quarters.)
If I'm right, how should progressives respond? First, by making their voices heard through groups like Get FISA Right. Don't stop now. A consensus-builder's process will always be influenced by groups like this. Secondly, by not taking it personally when he moves on. Recognize that it's part of his style: He believes he's done all he can do (whether you agree with him or not -- in FISA's case I don't), and that now it's time to bring the group together.
In some ways Obama's novel values could be extremely valuable, even transformational, for our political process. But they could also lead him down some blind alleys and leave him open for sucker punches. So far he's been impressive at dodging those punches -- but where the Right's concerned, we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Still, I wouldn't bet against him.
Obama's unific style has sometimes disappointed me. But I've also found it fascinating to watch. And it's given me an opportunity to re-examine my own style, which has been rewarding.
Two factors are making this election historical: the political power of the Internet, and Obama's management approach (whatever its origins.) That gives us a chance to relate to a politician in new ways -- by detaching from him, studying his leadership model, and then interacting with him tactically and strategically.
Strangely enough, I get the feeling he'd like that. More importantly, it's a good exercise for us.After all, the best thing we can do politically is to become smarter and more flexible. That makes each of us more capable of supporting our most important value - whether it's unity or something completely different, like freedom. Or justice.
But whatever your core value, we can agree on one thing for unity's sake: It's going to be an interesting year.
It’s alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover’s tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then . . .
Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction – whoosh! she’s back at your throat! – has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal . . . only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.
The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.
Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races – one by a mere 3% – against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I’m not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.
Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they’re fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.
The media are marvelling at the Clintons’ several near-death political experiences in this campaign. Hasn’t it occurred to them how creepily familiar all this is? The Clintons live off psychodrama. They both love to push themselves to the brink of catastrophe and then accomplish the last-minute, nail-biting self-rescue. Before too long the entire story becomes about them, their ability to triumph through crisis, even though the crises are so often manufactured by themselves. That is what last week brought back for me. The 1990s – with a war on.
Remember: Bill Clinton could have easily settled the Paula Jones lawsuit years before he put the entire country through the wringer (Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment alleged to have occurred while he was governor of Arkansas).
Recall: Hillary Clinton could have killed what turned out to be the White-water nonstory at the very outset by disclosing everything she could (the scandal centred on a controversial Arkansas property deal).
Consider: the Clintons could have prepared for primaries and caucuses after February 5 – so-called Super Tuesday, when 24 states held their presidential nomination vote – as any careful candidate would. They chose not to do any of these things. Not because they are incompetent. But because they live to risk.
Politics is also their life. They know nothing else. Most halfway normal people in politics could at some point walk away. Reagan seemed happy to. Not the Clintons. In the words of the American-based British writer Christo-pher Hitchens, these are the kind of people who never want the meeting to end. Hillary Clinton will never concede the race so long as there is even the faintest chance that she can somehow win.
They endure all sorts of humiliation – remember the taped Clinton deposition in the Ken Starr investigation (in which Clinton admitted to the inquiry headed by the far-right prosecutor that he had had an “improper physical relationship” with Monica Lewinsky)? Hillary’s dismissal of the Lewinsky matter as an invention of the right-wing conspiracy? – because they know no other way to live. They have been thinking of this moment since they were in college and being a senator or an ex-president or having two terms in the White House are not sufficient to satiate their sense of entitlement. Even if they have to put their own party through a divisive, bitter, possibly fatal death match, they will never give up. Their country, their party . . . none of this matters compared with them.
The patterns are staggeringly unaltered. Last Thursday The Washing-ton Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.
The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven’t – and say they won’t for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.
When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.
The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.
And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.
One is reminded of the words of Bob Dylan: “And here I sit so patiently / Waiting to find out what price / You have to pay to get out of / Going through all these things twice.”
