Obama condemns holocaust- predictably, National Review disagrees

Wow. I just...wow.

I admit to Trolling for Trolls this one time.

To be fair, they were always really into Reagan going to Bitburg.

---

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 12:57 PM

Ok. Where is that dumb bimbo Abby? I want her to respond to this.

---

Yeah I think it's splitting a pretty fine hair to attack someone for saying the extermination of Jews was "senseless." I guess if you interpret that to mean without logic or plan, you could argue that the Nazis had a plan- kill all the Jews, take their property and "purify" their nation. If you take it as meaning not reasonable or lacking in judgement, well, I think we can all agree that was NOT a good plan- it was not reasonable and did not show good sense.

I guess in this case I'd use Nazi death camps as an example of "senseless violence" and the Allied response and the death of Nazi soldiers in the ensuing melee as "non-senseless violence." Of course, If I were a German of the era I might see that differently.

I wonder PJ, if you'd merely read Obama's statements, instead of this attack on him for making them, would you have objected to his use of the word "senseless"?

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 01:17 PM

I only objected because you brought it up.

---

^^^

THIS!

The only one it seems to be inflaming is, you, sue. The NR is disagreeing with the president's use of word "senseless", and is deliberately misinterpreting it.

Words matter.

GHOSTLIGHT. The Headline Im referring to is the JOEKV headline of this thread.

its TROLLY....

He slammed me yesterday accusing me of doing the same thing... I actually did agree with him on that poing and changed it....just pointing out hypocrisy.... Whats good for the goose....

its just nice if people admit they made a booboo, thats all. but only a big person can do that.

that is all.

---

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 02:06 PM

I do not agree that "senseless" necessarily means "random".

Here's the article:

President Obama issued a statement yesterday to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day. He noted that survivors who bore witness to “the horrors of the cattle cars, ghettos, and concentration camps have witnessed humanity at its very worst and know too well the pain of losing loved ones to senseless violence.” (We noted below how some in Europe chose to mark the day, which takes place each year on January 27, the day Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.)

The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.

Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which the president is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.

On September 12, 2012, President Obama also lamented the “the kind of senseless violence that took the lives” of four Americans in Benghazi. That, you may recall, is the day the president supposedly said the murders occurred as a result of a non-senseless terrorist attack carried out by jihadists.

This sanitized version of events, both past and present, is surely more comforting. It’s also truly senseless."

This writer reported The Presidents comments, then neatly eviscerates the president for making them and labels liberals unable to understand the world for doing such a thing as condemning Nazi violence as senseless.

He then gives us a thumbnail sketch of Nazism as something the USA and the President are both "implacably opposed" to (And hey, go look up what implacably means- I did: "Impossible to appease." So does he think the USA should have NOT been so UN-appease-able dealing with Nazis?- guess that is another discussion) and misses a chance to badmouth the Reich himself.

THEN he moves on to hail the Nazi regime as popular, well-organized and sensible and somehow manages to make the Nazi Manifesto seem like Hitler's "Contract with Germany."

He ends up with a last swipe at the President condemning terrorist attacks and, well, I can't make head nor tail of his word salad. You tell me what he meant before he calls Obama the word he objected so strenuously to being applied to the Holocaust.

Hence my title "Obama condemns holocaust- predictably, National Review disagrees." The only word that could possible be unsupported by the article would be 'predictably' and that's only if you haven't listened to anything conservatives have said about him the last 6 years or so.

ooops. repeated post

---

Updated On: 2/1/13 at 03:04 PM