Saturday, November 22, 2014

Immorality of Obama, the New York Times, and the liberal Empire--the case of Kassig's beheading by ISIS

1. Obama called Mr. Kassig's execution "an act of pure evil by a terrorist group." Obama also added: “Today we offer our prayers and condolences to the parents and family of Abdul-Rahman Kassig, also known to us as Peter." The New York Times explains that "the president used the Muslim name that Mr. Kassig adopted after his capture." US President thus used the name which was imposed on Kassig by the "evil terrorist group" after Kassig lost freedom and was under ISIS total control. A contentious person has to ask how  renaming Kassig, a US veteran (an Army Ranger, in fact) who fought in Iraq, in accordance with the orders of ISIS is pious or a right thing to do. Should US POWs want to be known and remembered by the names which their captors choose for them and which the US president is to use in his official, public statements?

2.  If Obama completely ignored the fact ISIS also executed 18 (some even say 30) captured Syrian soldiers and made their death the main theme of their video, the New York Times devoted in its article to the execution of the Syrian POWs only one single sentence placed toward the very end of the article. Furthermore, not to spill any tears or to show any sympathy over the deaths of the Syrian soldiers who were actually fighting ISIS, this "pure evil," the New York Times referred to them only in the context of emphasizing the technical "professionalism" in which their beheading was filmed with an emphasis on the image of the "shining blade of the knife": "In one extended sequence, a mass beheading of captured Syrian soldiers is shown, filmed with long close-ups of details, like the shining blade of the executioner’s knife, mirroring the high production quality of the first four beheading videos." This is one and only reference to the execution of the many Syrian soldiers that took place there.

3. On November 21, the US together with Ukraine, that is, the US-sponsored and supported Nazi regime in Kiev, (plus Harper's Canada) were also the only 3 countries that voted AGAINST the UN resolution condemning support and glorification of Nazism.

The representative of the Ukrainian delegation argued that Ukraine was opposing the resolution merely because the document should have also included the condemnation of "Stalinism."

Well, the fact is that Stalin was the leader who led and organized the defeat of Nazism in WWII. The Ukrainian demand to condemn Stalin (or Stalinism), really just a foil for the Soviet Union, in the resolution against Nazism is as good as demanding that the main enemy and victim of Nazism be condemned together with Nazism itself. Further, to assume that Stalin and Nazism represent the same thing is a thought which liberalism propagated and behind which new Nazis try to shield themselves and advance their own interests. Moreover, the demand to condemn Nazism today has a direct bearing on today's politics, while Stalin does not present any obvious direct threat to anyone. And it was Nazism that started World War II. Not Stalin. Nazis carried out the Odessa massacre, and among the victims were also Odessa communists. At the earthly plane, no one is without the dark or sins, as Christianity says. However, this does not mean that there is moral/immoral equivalence or that complete relativism or pretentious neutrality is the way to go. A cut and determination has to be made, and a stance (and side) has to be taken.

It is also not that hard to see that Ukraine's Nazi regime is trying to use "Stalinism" as a code-word for anyone who fights today's Nazism--for the opponents of Nazism. They thus tried to destroy the resolution by insisting on including in it their own opponents--enemies of Nazism. A cynical and sophistic move. It would be similar to insisting that a resolution against communism should also include a condemnation of US genocide against the Native people and slavery in the US, the latest to be officially abolished in the "democratic" and "developed" world. Or if, in a resolution praising the Allied victory in World War II, someone would insist on condemning the nuclear holocaust of Hiroshima.

So who is fighting Nazism today? Certainly not the US or Ukraine.

Thus, on the key question of our time and today's politics, it is the US, not Russia, that is devastatingly isolated and on the wrong side (of the truth, history, ethics, and the right): a committee of the General Assembly voted on the resolution condemning glorification of Nazism. So what happened (this year again)? 115 countries voted for, and only three (3) countries voted against. Who opposed the condemnation of Nazism? The US, Ukraine, and, well, Harper's Canada. Other US allies, mainly the EU, decided to play it neutral and chose to abstain.

No comments:

Post a Comment