Thursday, January 05, 2006

'Sharon A Man Of Peace' - Bush... Huh?

Arial Sharon, the man even Israelis accused of being a war criminal, for the massacre of Palestinians, is a man of courage and peace, according to President Bush in his latest statement after news of Sharon's stroke.

George W. Bush then went on to say David Duke is a great champion of equality and that Stalin was a friend of freedom. He declared that Hosni Mobarak in Egypt and Musharaff in Pakistan are excellent democratically elected leaders (because Bush cannot spell 'dictator').

President Bush then commended the Saudi Royal Family for its support of women's rights and freedoms of choice, speech and driving.

Imran

7 comments:

E Mullah الیکٹرونک مُلا said...

That's funny

Anonymous said...

Yeah - the classy thing to do would've been to insult a dead guy.

Imran Anwar said...

Sharon is/was a butcher, a genocidal killer and war criminal. Calling him that while he is alive or dead is no different than callinng Hitler a killer. Sharon will have a cot next to Hitler's in hell, where he belongs.

Do you say good things about Hitler and Stalin because they are dead? Ha.

Imran

Anonymous said...

Imran,
first, I liked about 90% of what you said today on WWRL... which is more than i can say for most analysts... I especially liked what you had to say about how the cartoon upset you justifiably and how you, and most americans (muslim or not) would handle this, and due to education, is unfortunately not the situation in the middle east.

I don't know if Sharon, however, can be quantified into the same category as Hitler and Stalin... and Duke for that matter. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, a few million other "undesirables" as well as countless others and tried to take over the world, Stalin killed possible more people than Hitler, and Duke, is not really a murderer but an unsavory character who stands for some of the worst remnants of the USA.

the "blood on Sharon's hands" is questionable, there is controversy over what actually happened at the massacres and how much culpability you can really put on this one man. I am not defending what he has done, I'm saying there is not as much established fact as to his "evilness", from my opinion...

Also, like King Hussein who in later years became a man of relative peace from a quite bloody past (Black September), I think it is good form in politics anyway to measure a man's deeds on the whole, with special attention given to the most recent, especially if it is a move from war to peace... Sharon has not been a "man o' war" in the last couple years that he was prime minister. His biggest moves in the last few years have seen him becoming somewhat of a troubling dove, not necessarily one you can trust, but not a hawk.

You don't have to like him, I just don't think he can be quantified into the same category as the other people you mentioned. When it comes to evil leaders and such, there are, or at least should be, different categories of evilness and culpability.
Thanks, I hope to hear more from you on WWRL and Fox News, my favorite programs!
-Matthew

Imran Anwar said...

Thanks, Matthew, for your kind comments about my radio "appearance" today. I love being on WWRL. It is always a lively and fun discussion and I love the intelligent listeners responses I get, even if someone does not agree 100%. :-)

The point I am making is not in absolute evil terms, but the dual standard of American policy towards Israel (which can do no wrong) and Arabs (who can do no right) as far as our government goes. And that also plays into negative stereotypes people have here of that region.

Mind you, I have been on Fox News Channel where I clearly stated that Sharon and (then living) Arafat were both the same as "men of peace" NOT.

Thanks for the comment, and catch you on air again.

Imran

Dijhili said...

If Bush were a Liberal or Dem he would have bashed Sharon...kinda like what they did to Bush at Mrs. kings funeral....very classy of the Dems ......really...shows there true character !

Imran Anwar said...

Huhhh? Only a person with nothing logical to say about the topic at hand will shove in some other, unrelated topic. Sharon is a brain-dead previously merely heartless fiend who Bush calls a man of peace. People were bashing Bush at the King funeral - were they bashing the dead woman? So? What's your point?

Also, saying Bush (or Cheney) and character in the same sentence, now THAT is a joke.

Imran