A Tepid Response when Outrage is Required.

Leave a comment

Tepid.

Dictionary.com defines “tepid” likes this:

adjective

  1. moderately warm; lukewarm: tepid water.
  2. characterized by a lack of force or enthusiasm: tepid prose; the critics’ tepid reception for the new play.

Tepid is a great word to describe President Obama’s response to the latest terrorist attack in Jerusalem-a terrorist attack launched by who else, Hamas\Palestinians. The attack took place in a house of prayer and left a number of Rabbis with duo western\Israeli citizenship dead. An Israeli Druze policeman died a bit later after the shootout with the terrorists that also left the terrorists dead. Total Israeli dead numbered five.

It didn’t take long before we heard President Obama’s tepid response in which he repeated all the catch phrases that add up to the left’s idiotic moral equivalency arguments. Such as…

“The majority of the of the Palestinian people want peace.”

Obviously. That’s why they elected Hamas to their government and have a President overtly sympathetic to Hamas\Jihadis even as he issued his own tepid response to the attack that at the same time condemned it and justified it.

Obviously. That’s why Palestinians were dancing in the streets after the attack just as they did after 9\11.

Obviously.That’s why we heard numerous Muslim clerics deplore the attack and condemn the attackers. No, wait a minute, we didn’t hear any. Where are the so-called Muslim moderates? What is the definition of a Muslim moderate anyway? Is it a Jihadi who just stops short of cutting off people’s heads?

“We urge both sides to show restraint. Enough Palestinians and Israelis have died.”

There it is, the moral equivalency response. Terrorists attack defenseless Israeli citizens in a house of prayer and Israel which warns defenseless citizens of an impending attack should show restraint.

Never mind that Hamas hides its military assets among the civilian population in the hopes that Israel will kill civilians in their response. Hamas does this knowing full well that the western media will make much of the Israeli attacks and little of Hamas’ manipulation. The western media loves to make a victim out of the perpetrator. Hamas plays the western media like a fiddle.

It is noteworthy that Israel’s President Netanyahu called on western governments to express outrage. The fact he had to ask western governments to express outrage is because like Obama’s tepid remarks the tendency of the west is to likewise be tepid in their responses to Palestinian outrages.

The west with its bent toward political correctness and pacifism nominally fights ISIS in Iraq and Syria yet urges Israeli restraint in dealing with Hamas/Palestinians who are cut from the same cloth as ISIS. Go figure.

The Israeli government just relaxed the rules for Israelis to carry guns. That’s a response that makes sense. Perhaps if one of those hapless Rabbis had a gun the death toll would have been terrorists 2KIA and Israelis 0KIA or the attack would not have happened at all. Cowards do not like to face armed citizens. The defenseless make much easier targets for a coward. And the left wonders why we Second Amendment defenders like conceal and carry. Hamas and criminals is why.

One can only conclude from Obama’s tepid remarks that he sympathizes with Hamas and believes there is validity to their cause if not their methods.

Note to President Obama: Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and will not stop until that is achieved. And by the way, we’re next. At least two of those Rabbis were Americans.

Advertisements

Moral Equivalency-Hamas vs Israel

Leave a comment

There is a great column by Dennis Prager on Townhall.com titled, The Jewish State in a Morally Sick World.

In the article Prager discusses the concept of moral equivalency as it relates to the ongoing struggles between Israel and Hamas as well as the Islamic States that support Hamas.

The definition of moral equivalency from rationalwiki.org is: Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

Prager makes the argument that the moral gulf between Israel and Hamas is as great as the moral gulf between the Western Allies in WW2 and the Nazis. Prager continues to make his point by noting that hundreds\thousands of British were killed in the blitz and thousands\hundreds of thousands were killed in Germany by the RAF and USAF later in the war.

Prager notes and accurately I think that if all you do is look at the casualty rate you have some sort of moral equivalency that makes the western allies as bad as the Nazis. And this is the kind of illogical fallacy that many in the west commit when they compare Israel to Hamas.  The argument goes something like this. If Hamas kills three and the Israeli’s kill 30 in response, then Israel has not shown restraint and is immoral for doing so. Hamas on the other hand gets a pass because they hide among their civilians and look like the victims to the western media.

Hamas uses the western media to focus on the Palestinian\Hamas casualty rate versus the casualty rate of the Israelis to make a moral equivalency argument; or better put, to paint themselves as the victims of Israeli aggression as it they had nothing to do with the Israeli reaction to their incessant missile attacks and pledge to kill all Jews.

Hamas deliberately puts their own people in harm’s way to make the sympathy point and many in the western world fall for it and urge Israel to show restraint and/or just surrender to the acts of terror.

Below is Israel’s PM Netanyahu speaking to western ambassadors pleading with them to take a moral stand against Hamas. Netanyahu is quite right when he says that if the west lets this go the west will be next. The jihadis use our own morality against us while they have little of their own.

MAD

Leave a comment

MAD stood for mutually assured destruction during the Cold War. The theory was that neither superpower would start a nuclear war because each had the power to destroy the other so no one would win. MAD obviously worked because the superpowers were rational enough to “get it.”

All that came to mind as Secretary of State John Kerry returned to the US waving a metaphorical piece of paper declaring peace in our time with Iran. Why Obama and Kerry would find the mullahs in Iran trustworthy is astounding. Why they would find the mullahs in Iran rational is equally astounding.

Our Israeli friends who have everything to lose are not going to wait around to see if a nuclear Iran is trustworthy or rational. They cannot afford to be stupid or naive.

%d bloggers like this: