She absurdly claims that the "siege" of Gaza is the cause of the rocket fire:
"The world turned a blind eye as Gazans languished in the world's biggest prison, unable to travel, import, export or interact with anyone or anything beyond their borders. And the world largely ignored the rockets Hamas fired in anger and frustration from within the siege."
Ridiculous. If the siege caused the rockets,
then what caused the siege in the first place?
Has she even thought about this for 5 minutes?
And Hamas don't kill Jews because they are "angry" and "frustrated".
They kill Jews because that is their nature.
We don't expect balance here, and we don't get it.
No alternative to Esposito's absurd views is presented.
But there are some revealing statements. For example:
"Esposito was "a strong supporter" of Obama and will vote for him again."
Esposito also says he is more worried about Israel than Iran:
"I'm uncomfortable with Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. But the person I'm more concerned about is Netanyahu".
Of course!
Ahmad Abu Halabiya said in the sermon (broadcast live on PA TV):
"O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites. They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the Almighty said".
A lot of
butchering of Jews
followed.
First, Marlowe insultingly compares the Israeli video of this to jihadi propaganda videos.
As if reporting on the actual words of jihadists is hate speech!
Then she expresses a strange doubt as to its accuracy:
"Intercut with the rubble and gore is a blurry grey image of what is allegedly the interior of a mosque in Gaza. "They must be butchered and they must be killed," says the caption, attributed to Hamas".
Why was she too lazy to do the 5 minutes Googling that led me to the
transcript
and speaker?
Finally she incredibly says:
"Hamas is utterly, totally demonised in the eyes of Israelis."
As if there's something wrong with "demonising" primitive
Jew-killing terrorists
like Hamas!
How narrow-minded the Israelis are to "demonise" genocidal totalitarians.
Lara Marlowe can even read about
Ahmad Abu Halabiya
at the
ADL site.
Googling isn't that hard!
The New York Times doesn't like Googling either.
This
article of 23 Jan 2012 is shocked at an "Islamophobic" film showing the black flag of Islamic jihad flying over the White House.
They don't bother doing the
one minute's Googling
that would show them that this image was made by the Islamists themselves.
The article is tired old left-wing claptrap that the US and Israel
are the cause of the Islamic terror (jihad)
and Islamic oppression (sharia)
that has been going on across the world
for nearly 1,400 years.
Here's how she deals with the bizarre left-wing and Islamic anger that
blames the allies for killings done by jihadis:
"hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are believed to have been killed and thousands of Afghans. US officials say most die at the hands of their own countrymen. That doesn't change the perception that the US is ultimately responsible because it started both wars."
Note she doesn't say that this "perception" is insane,
and shows that the root cause of Islamic anger and violence
must lie elsewhere.
She writes as if this "perception" has a point to it.
She says if you'd been in Guantánamo,
"you'd probably join an extremist group too".
Speak for yourself, Ms Marlowe.
Most people who suffer do not become sadistic killers.
And jihadis don't join up because they have "suffered".
(Most haven't.)
They join up because they are in the grip of religious euphoria and fanaticism.
They are starry-eyed believers, not normal decent people driven to desperation.
She talks of
"the .. dangerous failure to provide Muslims appalled by US policies with an alternative to suicide bombing."
Um, duh.
How about voting?
Jihadis don't suicide bomb
lines of voters
because they have "no alternative".
They do it because that's the kind of people they are.
She bizarrely claims that
"the creation of a viable, independent state for the Palestinians"
would reduce, rather than escalate, Islamic terror.
No evidence for this is provided.
If lefties want the US to "get it",
they should come up with some evidence, rather than just making arrogant assertions.
Iraqi couple creating new life in land which destroyed their own, Lara Marlowe, February 20, 2010,
about some Iraqi refugees in the US.
What a disgusting headline.
The jihad, not the US, destroyed Iraq.
But hell will freeze over before Marlowe will recognise this.
She writes:
"Amjed and Aseel recognise the paradox: the US wrecked their country, and now welcomes them with open arms, and they are grateful."
The jihad could not possibly be to blame.
Only the white man can be guilty!
Her analysis is as follows:
"He looks set to lose because of three things: the 9.6 per cent unemployment rate, which shows no sign of abating; disinformation by Republicans, and Obama's own ineptitude as a communicator."
That is, he will lose not because Americans reject his left-wing policies, but rather because of
"disinformation" and poor communication of his greatness.
I don't recall Lara Marlowe spinning for Bush like this.
If you remember the articles where she did, please tell me
here.
She claims (based on no evidence other than some long forgotten speech)
that Obama wanted to be bipartisan:
"Bipartisan co-operation was a hallmark of Obama's political philosophy."
But apparently her hero was foiled by the wicked
Republicans, who, despite having control of neither house,
somehow managed to block the President:
"Partisan gridlock has blighted Obamas first two years in office
...
After nearly two years of Republican obstructionism in Congress, and in the last throes of a particularly vicious midterm election campaign, Obama's appeal for bipartisanship sounds naive now."
What sounds naive is all those floating centrist voters in 2008
who thought that the arrogant, patronising, ultra-partisan left-winger Obama would be
somehow centrist and bipartisan like Bill Clinton.
Here is how she spins the fact that
the worst Islamist terror homeland attack in 7 years
happened months into Obama's watch:
"With the exception of Maj Hasan's rampage, US territory has been spared further lethal extremist violence under Obama's watch."
In fact, even apart from Fort Hood,
the list of
Islamic attacks on the US
shows an uptick since Obama arrived.
A weak leader seems to invite adventurism.
And finally, the race card.
If you don't like this weak leftie President, you are a racist.
"There's an echo of racism in the Tea Partiers' determination to "take our country back" from the black president".
I guess
Allen West
is a racist then!
Just to clarify, Lara Marlowe, this uncritical Obama booster,
is the chief US correspondent for The Irish Times.
This non-story is about the new Republican leaders being "too busy"
to talk to President Obama, who
- having ignored the Republicans for 2 years -
suddenly wants to meet them now they control the House.
Lara Marlowe is outraged by the snub to her hero Obama:
"This shabby treatment of the democratically elected leader of the free world".
Which raises several questions:
Was she ever outraged by any snub to Bush, ever?
Did she ever call Bush the "leader of the free world"? (Except in a sneering, ironic way.)
Has she ever written anything that shows she even believes in the concept of "the free world"?
The rest of the article is just a load of hyper-partisan Democrat talking points
about the mean Republicans obstructing the great Obama's agenda.
(Um, isn't that their job?)
"In Republican debates, [Mitt] Romney accuses President Barack Obama of "apologising" for America.
It is a roundabout way of saying the first African American president is different, not one of us."
Marlowe yet again says that anyone who criticises the President is racist!
How long can she play this race card?
Forever, it seems.
It seems that people like her won't be happy until Republicans all support a Democrat President,
and give up any idea of proposing their own candidates.
How dare the opposition actually oppose the President and propose alternatives!
Obama apologises for America.
If you criticise
Obama's
"apology tour"
you are a racist,
according to Lara Marlowe.
The Heritage Foundation
gives us a rundown of Obama's apologies for America.
Maybe Lara Marlowe should read this.
"In Republican debates, [Mitt] Romney accuses President Barack Obama of "apologising" for America.
It is a roundabout way of saying the first African American president is different, not one of us."
TIME magazine's
Joe Klein
is a kindred spirit of Marlowe.
Joe Klein, September 16, 2009,
says that
the Tea Party, Sarah Palin - indeed any critics of Obama - all are racist.
"My sense of the teabaggers is ... they are primarily working-class, largely rural and elderly white people. They are freaked by the economy. They are also freaked by the government spending - TARP, the stimulus package etc. - that was necessary to avoid a financial collapse."
[Furious spin for Obama.]
"But most of all, they are freaked by an amorphous feeling that the America they imagined they were living in - Sarah Palin's fantasy America - is a different place now, changing for the worse, overrun by furriners of all sorts: Latinos, South Asians, East Asians, homosexuals..to say nothing of
liberated, uppity blacks.
In that sense, Barack Obama is the apotheosis of all they fear."
How pathetic.
It's just sliming people without any evidence.
Klein goes on to say, by contrast, how wonderful he is:
"Finally, I should say that the things that scare the teabaggers - the renewed sense of public purpose and government activism, the burgeoning racial diversity, urbanity and cosmopolitanism - are among the things I find most precious and exhilarating about this country."
Mark Steyn in
After America
(2011)
hilariously points out that
Klein chooses to live in Pelham, New York, which is 87.33 percent white.
While Sarah Palin lives in Wasilla, Alaska, which is 85.46 percent white.
"Unlike Wasilla ... Pelham is within reach of splendidly diverse, urbane, and cosmopolitan quartiers - the Bronx, for example - yet Joe Klein, Mister Diversity, chooses not to reside in any of them, and prefers to live uppitystate of the uppity blacks. Statistically speaking, he lives in a less diverse neighborhood overrun by fewer "furriners" than that chillbilly bonehead's inbred redoubt on the edge of the Arctic Circle. Yet she and her supporters are the "racists and nativists," while Joe preens himself on his entirely theoretical commitment to "diversity.""
Lara Marlowe calls the Tea Party "racist" for wanting to get rid of Obama.
Yes, that's why they like
Herman Cain (above).
Not to mention
Allen West.
And Tim Scott.
And so on.
What a pathetic argument.
"You must be racist if you oppose a black left-winger!"
The Obama
"race card".
Marlowe plays it even more than Obama does!
From here.
Lara Marlowe calls any opposition to the great President Obama racist.
She called the Tea Party racist, despite no evidence.
So it is pretty amusing, given her hatred for the boring, family-oriented, moderate, mainstream Tea Party,
to see her gushing support for the radical, aggressive,
hate-filled, violent, vandalising, criminal "Flea Party" (the Occupy movement).
Poll, Oct 2011, shows the Tea Party is more ethnically diverse than the Flea Party.
USA is 11 percent black.
Tea Party is 6 percent black.
Occupy Wall Street is 1.6 percent black.
But Lara Marlowe isn't listening.
Here,
she gushes about the Occupy movement in the Irish Times, 19 Nov 2011, and compares it to noble protests of the past.
The
Occupy Wall Street protests
compared to the Tea Party protests that Lara Marlowe hates.
Graphic from The Jawa Report.
Lists of "Occupy Wall Street" crimes, deaths, violence and incidents
here
and here.
There is a reason why they were called the
"Flea Party"
or
"Flea Bag"
protests.
Hilarious.
A calm, logical Brit
(Charles C. W. Cooke
of National Review)
interviews an Occupy person, 11 Oct 2011.
He asks him why the state should pay for his college tuition. "I mean I'd quite like a new car. Should that be paid for?"
Hilarious.
Many leftie clerics like Rowan Williams
have been supporting the Occupy movement, and letting them
block
and
use (desecrate) their churches.
Of course the Occupy people appreciate this:
"parts of the bronze baptismal font were gone
...
an occupier peed inside the building
...
an occupier urinated on a cross
...
a $2,400 Apple MacBook vanished from [the cleric's] office."
They're just like the Tea Party!
Lara Marlowe's article of Democrat talking points
comes just days after a poll
showing
46 percent of voters backing the Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney,
and only 43 percent backing the Democrat candidate, Lara Marlowe's hero Barack Obama.
It takes some arrogance to declare that the majority of voters cannot be considered "mainstream".
Tim Johnston, 27 May 2012:
"blah blah blah same old same old. Can't win an argument so the liberals have to claim their opponents are nutty. Been happening since at least the 1930s.
...
When someone is writing articles calling the biggest political party in the United States "extremist" it begs the question of who is the real extremist?"
On the rhetorical trick of lefties like Lara Marlowe who keep announcing that
their opponents have suddenly "swung to the hard right" (whereas previously they were apparently ok):
Obama-supporter
James Fallows, Mar 2012,
gives an example of this,
writing that Obama has
"the prospect of occupying the acceptable center, as the Tea Party spins the Republican Party off to the extreme."
Andrew Ferguson, 10 Sept 2012, has a funny line in reply:
"Like so many commentators, Fallows has seen the Republican party spinning off to the extreme since the Nixon administration."
Lara Marlowe on the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, 20 June 2012, doesn't even pretend to be impartial:
"More audaciously, Romney, the millionaire founder of Bain Capital, which fired employees by the thousands, now portrays himself as the defender of the downtrodden.
In his speeches, Obama analyses and explains. Romney delivers unfounded assertions in easily digested sound bites."
Lara Marlowe was ecstatic at Obama winning re-election:
Thoughts of Gettysburg address and Lincoln as Obama took stage, Lara Marlowe, 8 Nov 2012.
"President Barack Obama's victory speech early yesterday was in a league with the orations that propelled him to the Oval Office in the first place ...
Historians may one day put it on a par with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address."
Lara Marlowe has spent years implying that opponents of Barack Obama are "racist".
So it is hilarious to find an example where she supports the white politician,
and wants to see the black politician defeated.
A writer I know called Lara Marlowe would call this kind of thing racist!
Allen West's 2010 election in an 82 percent white district
was a wonderful example of how non-racist the white American voter is.
And yet
Lara Marlowe wants him out in 2012,
and she supports his white opponent.
Hilarious stuff.
Left: Allen West (R).
Right: His opponent
Patrick Murphy (D).
Which one does Lara Marlowe support?
That's right, the white guy!
For some reason, here it is alright for Lara Marlowe and the Irish Times to support the white man, and oppose the black man.
"Irish-American" for the white man is a nice touch.
A writer I know called Lara Marlowe would say it has echoes of a tribal, racist appeal to the Irish newspaper reader.
And "extremist" for the black man is also a great touch.
A writer I know called Lara Marlowe would say this is painting him as the "other", not "one of us".
"The funny part is that the only people conspicuously obsessed with Obama's race are the people who trot out this nonsense. The logic sometimes seems to be, "we love that Obama is black, therefore people who don't like Obama must not like him because he's black." Maybe we just don't care and we're focusing on other things? I have no doubt there are people who don't like Obama because he's black. But I've never personally met such a person".
-
Jonah Goldberg
on Obama-lovers like Lara Marlowe who think his critics are "racist".
