Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Two speeches

Why am I the only one who notices these things when they are right there, staring us in the face?

Lets look at some very recent events, two speeches by political figures in very public fori, and the reactions of various nations' dignitaries to them.

The first one is by a certain Mr. Ahmadinejad, a president of Iran, and it took place at a UN racism summit. Via Reuters,

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a walkout during his speech to a U.N. racism summit on Monday when he accused Israel of establishing a "cruel and repressive racist regime" over Palestinians.


"Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," Ahmadinejad told the conference, on the day that Jewish communities commemorate the Holocaust.

"And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine," he said, according to the official translation.

"And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."


Dozens of diplomats in the audience promptly got up and left the hall for the duration of the speech.

"Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a U.N. anti-racism forum," said British ambassador Peter Gooderham, whose country chose not to send a minister to Geneva.


You know, the British cur has a point.

Calling the racist, oppressive Israeli state a "racist, oppressive state" is not permitted in polite company, and is very much frowned upon. Mr. Ahmadinejad simply broke the unwritten rule, and perhaps he has not even realized that he was breaking at the time, the savage brown nigger that he is.

Let that be a lesson to all the world: whenever Israel is criticized, active action MUST be taken to demonstrate one's affiliation and stance, lest the absence of an action (such as staying in the room listening to the whole speech) is taken as somehow tacitly approving the speaker's message...

Which would clearly mark you as the one on the side of terrorists.

And, worse yet, it puts you on the side of the Palestinians, the brown niggers, and against the civilized, cultured, sophisticated Western world, which is so very much against racism that it sends delegates to the UN anti racism conference.


Speech two was just given by Mr. Ortega, the current president of Nicaragua, at the Summit of the Americas.

Via FOX news (I know, I know):
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago -- President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America


In response to this verbal assault, of calling the United States, in effect, a terrorist, rogue nation which is a danger to its neighbors, president Obama walked out, followed by the diplomats of the American allies...

Oh wait, he did not walk out, and neither did anyone else!

Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.


Later, at a photo opportunity with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama held his tongue when asked what he thought about Ortega's speech.

"It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored two questions about Ortega's speech, instead offering lengthy praise of a cultural performance of dance and song opening the summit.

"I thought the cultural performance was fascinating," Clinton said. Asked again about the Ortega speech, Clinton said: "To have those first class Caribbean entertainers on all on one stage and to see how much was done in such a small amount of space, I was overwhelmed."

A senior administration official declined to criticize Ortega, saying the president wanted to focus on the future.


Lets compare and contrast the two events, shall we?

Mr. Ahmadinejad, doing his bit of political posturing for the folks watching the TV back home in Iran, calls Israel some bad names.

As a response, the whole civilized, cultured, and definitely non-racist Western world representatives get up and leave, while hailing that the speech was all about "outrageous anti-semitic remarks" (Jews, being special kinda folks, have a special word when racism is against them - racism against other races/religions, ALL other races and religions, is just plain racism, and does not carry as much importance).

In the second speech, Mr. Ortega for the very same reasons made some very similar remarks addressed towards the United States of America, going so far as to call the USofA "terroristic".

In response... well, nothing happens.

It is only Israel that is not allowed to be criticized in the "civilized" Western world - America is a fair target.

Am I the only one to see these two events and compare and contrast them?

Why isn't there a single pundit who can put 2 and 2 together and...

Oh right...

They are paid NOT to...

 Del.icio.us Add to my Technorati Favorites! StumbleUpon

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Incidentally...

From

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/20/racism.conference/index.html

Speaking at a Holocaust remembrance service in Jerusalem, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Ahmadinejad's address "constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it."

"It is hard to fathom why despots such as Hitler the Nazi, Stalin the Bolshevik and Ahmadinejad the Persian chose the Jews as the main target for their hatred, their madness and their violence," Peres said. "Perhaps they targeted the Jewish people because of its spiritual power - a nation poor in material possessions, but rich in values -- for he who is infected with megalomania fears the power of the spirit."

Of course, the above comparison is very neutral and fair... Makes it all the more (sadly) amusing to me that I seem to recall quite a number of very influential Jewish Bolsheviks who certainly were in leadership positions while the crimes committed on Russian and other nationalities were occurring. But, hooray for selective history.

There was another response from an Israeli official that equaled Iran to Nazi Germany outright, but I can't find it right now. I think it was some hotshot speaking at the March of the Living event.

Gotta love the unbiased and factual coverage by our esteemed media.

Frank Hope said...

I posted an article to the WorldNews reddit the other day titled "Israel not racist? Oh really? Ask Maria Aman's family. Her only "crime" is to be Palestinian". It was promptly deleted. Here's a link to the original article I wrote about Maria Aman.

I resubmitted the article with the title "The story of 8 year old quadriplegic Maria Aman and what it says about the Israeli government's attitude towards Palestinians". And this time it was not deleted and received a favorable rating by reddit readers.

So yes, it's not just the MSM that thinks that using "Israel" and "racist" in the same sentence is not tolerable in polite society.

My favorite post from all this is on www.kabobfest.com titled "Western Hypocrisy Shines at the Racism Conference". They have a photo of the European diplomats getting up during the Ahmadinejad speech with the caption "Sorry, we're at the wrong conference... thought it was a pro-racism event". LOL - that's some funny sh*t.

Kronprinz said...

"...a nation poor in material possessions"

Good g-d almighty, is he kidding?

Just who EXACTLY is the MEGALOMANIAC?????

--

~Dogs Bark, Birds Fly,

JEWS LIE

AmericanGoy said...

"...a nation poor in material possessions"

oh I missed that gem :-)