Wednesday, June 16, 2010
I guess it's my version of affirmative action describing yesterday's Tom Friedman column as "pretty good," but it gets so that anything that even gets it half right in the New York Times is something to celebrate. Friedman makes a few good point that are important for Times readers to hear: Letter From Istanbul
...Erdogan today is the most popular leader in the Arab world. Unfortunately, it is not because he is promoting a synthesis of democracy, modernity and Islam, but because he is loudly bashing Israel over its occupation and praising Hamas instead of the more responsible Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, which is actually building the foundations of a Palestinian state.
There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel's human rights abuses in the territories. Israel's failure to apply its creativity to solving the Palestinian problem is another dangerous vacuum. But it is very troubling when Erdogan decries Israelis as killers and, at the same time, warmly receives in Ankara Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the bloodshed in Darfur, and while politely hosting Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government killed and jailed thousands of Iranians demanding that their votes be counted. Erdogan defended his reception of Bashir by saying: "It's not possible for a Muslim to commit genocide."
As one Turkish foreign policy analyst said to me: "We are not mediating between East and West anymore. We've become spokesmen for the most regressive elements in the East."...
He's whispering danger when he should be yelling it from the rooftops.
Though it is better than the NYT's usual effort.
This pretty much sums up Islam...
Erdogan [said]: "It's not possible for a Muslim to commit genocide."
That was an absolutely astonishing comment.
The mind boggles.
What's so astonishing? Even though the word "genocide" was coined to describe the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks, Turkey still denies the fundamental character of their actions.
It's certainly not haram to put thousands to the sword in the name of Islam or ethnically cleanse parts of dar al Islam. Just don't call it genocide even if in every respect it meets the standard definition of genocide. And if you can't call it genocide because that would be un-Islamic, well then it must not be genocide. Why wouldn't Erdogan embrace Bashir and deny the genocide in Darfur.
Just what boggles the mind? Is it that you have trouble accepting the fact that Islamists, supported by their religious doctrine of taqiyya, brazenly say bald-faced lies and are offended if anyone suggests they're dishonorable?
Erdogan is an evil, double-talking, lying sack of sh*t. Of course he's going to say stuff like that—what else would you expect of him? The news here is not what he said but that someone like Tom Friedman would draw attention to it.
Erdogan's comment is mind-boggling only if you assume he has any credibility or that he might say something true. It's not mind-boggling if you don't take what he says at face-value.
Nappy's glad to see you're beginning to wrap your head around the way these guys work.
Time to remove our heads... from that deep hole in the sand.
And as expected, it's not getting any better.