Greetings.
Today is Ta‘anith ’Esther (the Fast of Esther), which commemorates the three-day fast of Esther in a time of peril due to an evil decree against the Jews of the Persian Empire as recounted in the Book of Esther. Purim, which commemorates the annulment of that decree, is tomorrow.
Political update: The wall surrounding the British Consulate in Jerusalem angers its Arab neighbors. Keep in mind that Israel was criticized by the UK (among others) for daring to put a wall between itself and hostile Arabs.
Also: The MoveOn PAC wants you to tell Congress to stay out of the Terri Schiavo fight. They’re also requesting donations to fight Bush’s plan to destroy Social Security.
Weird thing: Aish.com has a somewhat amusing 80-second film about light bulb-jokes.
Enjoy.
Aaron
12 comments:
Perhaps if the British do not want face the same dangers as the Americans, they should not associate themselves with them.
Perhaps if the Arabs will stop blaming other people for their problems and behaved respectably, people would want to associate with them. At the moment, at best people want to associate with their money.
Are you suggesting the Americans are blameless?
No. I’m denying that Arabs have the right to threaten and commit acts of violence against anyone who does anything they do not like, especially when the alleged offense is nonviolent or an act of self-defense. This perverse behavior is a reflection of the Arab belief that Arabs are entitled to dominate everyone else by virtue of being superior. That this egotistical world-view is downright wrong should be obvious. There are few Arabs in science and technology, and we hardly ever hear of anything of value being invented by an Arab. Every Arab government is undemocratic. Arab countries with strong economies are producers of oil; the rest are weak. Those that produce oil need the help of foreigners just to do so. These are nowhere near superior people, and after the oil runs out, Arabs will get about as much attention as Africans.
You think it was wrong for Bush to invade Iraq, fine. You think it was wrong for Blair to back him, that’s fine, too. Their motives are both questionable and their planning was woefully inadequate, even though getting rid of any dictator is a worthy reason to invade a country. However, that does not justify attacks by Iraqis on American and British soldiers, especially when said soldiers are only interested in ending violence; as such, acts of violence against them only prolong the occupation. If the insurgents had any sense, they would have avoided all fighting the moment the Americans invaded; without violence, Bush would have had no reason to keep American troops in Iraq once Saddam Hussein was captured.
We did invent a few things (like windmills) and we did have a number of prominent mathematicians and such, not to mention we preserved a lot of classical texts at a time the Europeans had no such interests. Nevertheless, you do seem to have your own problems thinking you are superior.
If you’re so low as to back terrorism, then you are morally inferior even to Bobby Awesome. Kindly avoid your clichéd parroting of propaganda or I will delete all your comments on my blog with extreme prejudice. You have been warned.
When did I say I backed terrorism or parrot propaganda? You read too much into what I am saying, my friend.
“Perhaps if the British do not want face the same dangers as the Americans, they should not associate themselves with them” is difficult to take not as condoning terrorism. The easiest interpretation for the “dangers” that Americans face are those in Iraq, where American and British forces are fighting a war against Iraqi guerillas. Interestingly, this comment has no connection with the original article, which deals with the building of a wall around the British consulate in Jerusalem, except by invoking Arab/Muslim propaganda, which unrealistically depicts the USA (“the Great Satan”) as favoring Israel in all things and thus as worthy as being the target of jihad. By associating with the Great Satan and supporting America in the war in Iraq (and disregarding that the war is not popular either in America or the United Kingdom), the British show themselves to be likewise horrible people and thus worthy of having jihad waged against them.
Or would you care to share a less radical interpretation of your original, irrelevant comment?
The Americans have been poking into the business of other countries for some time. Little wonder then they have offended many by installing dictators who favor them. (Where do you think Saddam Hussein came from in the first place?) It is little wonder they have made themselves a target and a great wonder there have not been more attacks upon your "Great Satan." I do not condone such attacks, but that does not change the fact that even though a victim may be innocent, he may still contribute to why he was attacked. The Americans have done wrong and it is wrong for the British to support them.
There’s a good deal of truth in that, I’ll give you that, and I do wish that governments wouldn’t play such immoral games. Though it must be noted that the US government certainly is not the only one which acts in such a reprehensible manner; Europe, China, and the Arab/Muslim governments (probably among others) are also playing these games, too. (Can you say “Lebanon”, “Taiwan”, “Sudan”?) The US is just a more convenient target.
Two things:
1) Please try to be a bit clearer about what you mean in the future. I’d rather not needlessly go into war-mode over a cryptic comment.
2) What does any of this tangent have to do with the British building a wall around their consulate in Jerusalem?
The British have acted shamefully by siding with the Americans in attacking Iraq, which, while headed by an evil man no one is sorry to see go, was not responsible for the attacks on your country. Little wonder then that the British have become targets themselves.
So because the British are fighting with the Americans in Iraq, the Arabs in Jerusalem complain about the British putting up a wall around their consulate, despite the fact that the UK has tended to side with the Arabs rather than the Jews in Israel even before there was a State of Israel?
Post a Comment