From the American Spectator:
Such venality and cowardice. The Olympic committee's decision is motivated by transparent anti-semitism and obsequity to Muslim thugs. The American team should have its own moment of silence in honor of the brave men who were murdered by Muslim terrorists on that horrible day in Munich.
No Moment of Silence for Murdered Israeli Athletes at London Olympics
By AARON GOLDSTEIN
The International Olympic Committee has rejected a proposal by Israel for a moment of silence at the 2012 Olympic Games in London in honor of the eleven Israeli athletes and coaches murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Summer Games in Munich.
I cannot say this comes as a great shock. The IOC is probably no different than the UN. If the IOC were to have honored the fallen Israelis in this way then the Arab/Muslim bloc would have either threatened to boycott the ceremony or the Olympic Games altogether. The truth of the matter is that most of the Arab/Muslim bloc is delighted the Israelis were murdered forty years ago and would probably celebrate if the entire Israeli delegation were to be slaughtered again this summer.
Such venality and cowardice. The Olympic committee's decision is motivated by transparent anti-semitism and obsequity to Muslim thugs. The American team should have its own moment of silence in honor of the brave men who were murdered by Muslim terrorists on that horrible day in Munich.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain. If a 'minute of silence' for the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre were to be held during the opening ceremony, shouldn't the request have gone to the organizing committee of the host city (in this case London) instead of the IOC? The IOC has little power over the running of the games, unless the host city is mismanaging it. The host city has to put certain elements into the opening ceremony, and everything in addition (including the entertainment, if it can be called that) is up to the local committee. I don't think that the IOC can by its charter require the host city to add elements to the opening ceremony.
So the question should be rephrased. Should the London organizing committee add a 'minute of silence' or not? And if not, would you be accusing the local committee of being antisemitic, knowing they'd probably be Christian and conservative? If they said 'no', I'd quite understand their refusal, particularly after the insanity of home grown terrorism in the 7/7 London underground bombing.
Agreed, Mike.
ReplyDeleteI'd very much like to see Team Canada do the same.
Bach,
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying it is the host city that makes these policy decisions? I would think these folks tried all the channels.
Secondly, the areas of London being used for the games are hardly known for being 'Christian conservative' strong holds.
But the part I find at once most interesting and disturbing about your comment is when you state:
" If they said 'no', I'd quite understand their refusal, particularly after the insanity of home grown terrorism in the 7/7 London underground bombing."
Are you suggesting the bombings WORKED? That the people of London would be quite correct to live in fear of a 'home grown' attack, should they mark a massacre with silence?
I think you must be. Remarkable!
CrusadeRex,
ReplyDeleteWell, the host city committee runs the games, not the IOC, which only has an oversight role. The host city has to put certain elements into its opening program. 'A minute of silence' isn't one of them.
Whether the London bombing worked or not is another matter, but you'd be foolish ignoring the possibility that someone insane enough (and anyone who thinks that they're going to get instant paradise and 72 virgins for killing themselves and a large number of civilians is mad) might be tempted to repeat the exercise.
The 'minute of silence' lasts a minute. The heightened risk, although probably slight, lasts a much longer time. There are more appropriate venues for remembering the massacre. Being courageous and thumbing your nose at the risk when you're not the person facing the risk of an insane reprisal isn't courageous.