Feb 8 2015
“Let me be clear, the Obama Crusades controversy is over whether it’s okay to hate Muslims,” claims questionable ‘journalist’ Max Fisher
No, it isn’t. Muslims themselves made it OK to hate Muslims. But not according to this far left virulent Israel-hating Jew and Obama water-carrier, Max Fisher, (photo right), no longer employed by the Washington Post, who writes for VOX, known for its Israel-hating, Hamas-sympathizing writers.
Max Fisher writes for the clown show that is Vox. Max Fisher is a hack…but you already knew this.
— Matthew (@Matthops82) August 6, 2014
For example, Max Fisher in the Washington Post, 15 Nov 2012, entirely fails to get the story behind the below photo.
Fisher reported at length on the death of the child. He included pictures of Misharawi’s burnt home, and the death was blamed on Israel. Jihad Misharawi’s brother Ahmed Misharawi was also killed. However, it later emerged that Ahmed Misharawi was a Hamas terrorist, who was wrapped in the Hamas flag at his funeral.
His brother Jihad Misharawi, who, remember, was employed by the BBC in Gaza, said: “Thanks to Allah, the Lord of the Universe, who chose him [Ahmed] to be a martyr, from all the people.
- The IDF said that “a terror site in the vicinity of the Mashrawi house had been targeted on November 14th and that the known terrorist Ahmed Masharawi was injured.” See more.
- The UN Human Rights Council, incredibly, said in Mar 2013 that the child was actually killed by Hamas rocket fire.
VOX is Ezra Klein’s commie website that repeatedly crapped the bed in 2014, with at least 49 examples of mis-reporting on stories: VOX keeps getting it wrong
VOX Now, back to the latest BS story from Max Fisher: It’s easy to overcomplicate the supposed controversy over President Obama comparing ISIS to the Crusades at a national prayer breakfast this week.
Was Obama’s comment downplaying the threat of violent Islamism? Drawing misguided parallels that reveal his worst biases? Unjustly (or justly) condemning religion itself? Hinting at the contours of a sophisticated counter-terrorism strategy?
Obama’s point was actually pretty simple. Let’s not pretend that Islam itself is to blame for ISIS or that Muslims are inherently more violent, he suggested, because the problem of religious violence is not exclusive to any one religion. In other words, don’t oversimplify the problem of ISIS to “Muslims are different from the rest of us.”
This point is so banal it could be an after-school special. That it has provoked national controversy goes to show that there is still a mainstream thread of thought in America that Islam is an inherently violent religion, that the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims are somehow different, and that non-Muslims are superior human beings.
Obama challenged the bigotry of those ideas, and the backlash has been both furious and mainstream. As Ta-Nehisi Coates pointed out, the scandal here is not Obama’s analogy. It’s that what should have been a dull platitude against bigotry has been controversial at all:
That this relatively mild, and correct, point cannot be made without the comments being dubbed, “the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” by a former Virginia governor gives you some sense of the limited tolerance for any honest conversation around racism in our politics.
Many critics have described Obama’s assertion that Christians are equivalent to Muslims as insulting to Christians. Whether this is because they believe that Christians are inherently superior or that Muslims are inherently inferior is irrelevant. It is not so different from, say, 1960s white supremacists who called Martin Luther King an anti-white racist for asserting that white and black people are fundamentally the same.
Other critics have charged that Obama is ignoring the real threat: that America is at war not just with extremists who happen to be Muslim, but rather with Islam itself. This comment, given to the New York Times, is simply breathtaking in its open assertion that America should declare war on the 1.6 billion Muslims who are overwhelmingly civilians and are largely women and children:
Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history at Emory University, said the president’s remarks seemed to be an attempt to avoid alienating Muslims by blaming their religion for groups like ISIS.
She said the remarks at the prayer breakfast will rightly bolster critics who insist that Mr. Obama should simply say that the United States is at war with Islam.
“He has bent over backwards to try to separate this from Islam,” Ms. Lipstadt said. “Sometimes people try to keep an open mind. And when you have too open a mind, your brains can fall out.”
Amazingly, some have tried to dismiss Obama’s comparison altogether by arguing that, even during the Crusades, in fact Christians were the victims and Islam the aggressor.
To be crystal clear: this is not a fight over the fine-grain imperfections of Obama’s historical analogy or over the implications for US foreign policy. It is a fight over whether it’s okay to hate Muslims, to apply sweeping and negative stereotypes to the one-fifth of humanity that follows a particular religion. A number of Americans, it seems, are clinging desperately to their anti-Muslim bigotry and are furious at Obama for trying to take that away from them. (Hey, if the shoe fits…)