Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Obama's Muslim speech


Guest BillyJack

Recommended Posts

Guest BillyJack

Wrong venue for Obama's Muslim speech

By Spengler

 

Why should the president of the United States address the "Muslim world", as Barack Obama will do in Egypt this Thursday? What would happen if the leader of a big country addressed the "Christian world"? Half the world would giggle and the other half would sulk.

 

There is no such thing as a Christian world, of course; there hasn't been since the Great Schism of 1054, even less so since the Reformation. Europe's nations agreed at the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to subordinate the confessional to political sovereignty. America, the new model of a nation, kept church separate from state. To utter the words "Christian world" would

 

persuade the Muslim world that a foul conspiracy was afoot, perhaps a new Crusade.

 

There is no "Christian world" to address because Christianity has become a private religion of personal conscience. Few Christian denominations aspire to the status of state religion; the Catholic Church abandoned earthly power at the Second Vatican Council in 1965. No Christian denomination aspires to world power. A "Christian world", in short, is not even a fantasy, let alone a fact, and to pronounce the words would be an absurdity.

 

What does it mean, though, to address the "Muslim world"? As a matter of practice, the Muslim world is just as fractured as the Christian world, even more so in the absence of any religious authority like the Catholic Church, which claims doctrinal authority over a billion people. Muslim religious authority is exercised ad hoc. The quasi-animist Islam of Sumatra and the Wahhabi Islam of Saudi Arabia have about as much in common as Midwest Methodists and Nigerian Pentecostals. But there is a great gulf fixed between the terms, "Christian world", and "Muslim world". No denomination of Islam will abandon its pretensions at official status, and all aspire to world power.

 

To speak to the "Muslim world", is to speak not to a fact, but rather to an aspiration, and that is the aspiration that Islam shall be a global state religion as its founders intended. To address this aspiration is to breathe life into it. For an American president to validate such an aspiration is madness. America is not at war with Islam, unless, that is, Islam were to take a political form that threatens America's global interests. These interests include friendly relationships with nation-states that have a Muslim majority, such as Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. To address "the Muslim world" is to conjure up a prospective enemy, for global political Islam only can exist as the enemy of the nation-states with which America has allied.

 

Obama, the White House press office told reporters last week, will address among other issues the Arab-Israeli issue. What does it imply to raise this issue in a speech to the "Muslim world"? Nearly 700 million of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims live in Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, countries which share no linguistic or cultural affinities with the Arabs, and have only religion in common.

 

They have no strategic interest whatever in the outcome of war or peace in the Levant. Their only possible interest is religious. Does the United States really believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is religious in origin? If that is not so, why should South Asian or East Asian Muslims care about the conflict to begin with? Why should the United States address concerns that it does not consider valid to begin with? And if it is religious in origin, what specifically makes the conflict religious?

 

If it really were the case that the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs are fighting over religious matters, then the theological Muslim position is the one represented by Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon, namely that a Jewish state on territory once held by the ummah (Muslim community) is an outrage to Islam and never can be accepted.

 

For the US president to address the "Muslim world" on the subject of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and by implication frame the matter in religious terms, is to define the matter as a jihad, and to rule out a peaceful solution - unless, of course, the president were to tell Muslims to abandon their religious scruples in order to accept the existence of the state of Israel. Excluding the unlikely possibility that Obama will declare himself to be a Muslim and claim religious authority in matters affecting Muslims everywhere, that is not going to happen in Cairo this Thursday.

 

It is quite possible for the state of Israel to live in peace with nation-states whose population is mainly Muslim, to be sure. Israel has done so since 1975 with Egypt and Jordan, and has until recently maintained excellent relations with Turkey. Until the Ruhollah Khomeini revolution of 1979, Israel was an ally and arms supplier of Iran. As a matter of national interest, many Muslim-majority countries may seek peaceful and even friendly relations with the Jewish state, irrespective of what the dictates of Islamic theology might be. Rather than addressing nations with national interest, though, Obama is addressing Muslims, over the heads as it were of majority-Muslim nation states.

 

Even though the Koran mentions Jerusalem not once (against 832 times in the Hebrew Bible and 161 times in the New Testament), later Muslim tradition makes Jerusalem a Muslim holy place. No Muslim religious authority in Asia or Africa can or will rule that Islam can tolerate a Jewish state in Palestine with its capital in Jerusalem. There are a few Muslim voices in Europe and the US favorably disposed to co-existence with the Jewish state, but they are whispers against the roar of an ocean.

 

Obama and his advisors seem to have taken to heart the view of Iraq's former defense minister Ali Allawi, whose book The Crisis In Islamic Civilization I reviewed some weeks ago (Predicting the death of Islam Asia Times Online, May 5.)

 

Allawi, who had been the Central Intelligence Agency's preferred candidate for president of Iraq under the George W Bush administration, writes off the nation-state as a political vehicle in the Islamic world. As I noted, he cites Pew Institute polls showing that people in Islamic countries view themselves as Muslims first, and citizens second: "Large majorities of Muslims in countries as diverse as Pakistan (79%), Morocco (70%) and Jordan (63%) viewed themselves as Muslims rather than citizens of their nation-states. Even in countries such as Turkey with its long secular history as a nation-state, 43% viewed themselves as Muslims in the first place, although 29% saw themselves as citizens of the nation-state."

 

The dream of a new caliphate is unattainable, Allawi argued, but the Western-style nation-state can only be a coffin for the culture of Islam. Muslims either will "live an outer life which is an expression of their innermost faith" and "reclaim those parts of their public spaces which have been conceded to other world views over the past centuries", he wrote, or "the dominant civilizational order" will "fatally undermine whatever is left of Muslims' basic identity and autonomy". Allawi is a Shi'ite with close ties to Iran, whose vision for the region centers on the transnational bloc of 200 million Shi'ite Muslims and their aspirations from Lebanon through Pakistan.

 

A gauge of the absurdity of an American president addressing "the Muslim world" was the difficulty in finding a venue for Thursday's speech. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak remains one of America's closest allies in the Muslim world, and the head of the most populous, important Arab state, and one that has a peace treaty with Israel. Egypt was the natural choice, but it called down criticism on Obama for validating a regime that suppresses political opposition. The opposition it suppresses most brutally comes from the Muslim Brotherhood (the Egyptian parent organization of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch), the first and still the most important Islamist organization.

 

By addressing the "Islamic world" from Cairo, Obama lends credibility to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and other advocates of political Islam who demand that Muslims be addressed globally and on religious terms - in contradistinction to nationalists such as Mubarak. Rather than buttress a loyal ally, Obama's speech undermines him on his home ground. That is a lose-lose proposition.

 

There is a way to rescue the situation, which I now propose to Obama in good faith: change the venue to New Delhi. After all, India's Muslim population is the world's third-largest at 158 million, just under Pakistan's 175 million and Indonesia's 200 million. Speaking from an Indian podium, Obama could say something like this:

I have come hear to address the Muslims of the world on Indian soil to emphasize that there is life after the end of Islam's status as a state religion. As a minority, Indian Muslims have had to maintain their communal life without a link between mosque and state, and by and large they have succeeded. It has not been easy. On occasion Indian Muslims have been provoked to violence against their more numerous Hindu neighbors, as in the state of Gujarat in 2002, and the Hindu response was horrendous. India's Muslims have learned that extremists in their ranks will call vengeance down upon their communities. They demonstrated sagacity in their refusal to bury in consecrated ground the Muslim terrorists killed last year in Mumbai.

 

Muslims around the world should look to India as an example of moderation and co-existence. Whether they like it or not, Muslims will remain a minority in the world, a minority that cannot defend itself against the superior technology and military culture of other countries. Its legitimate aspirations must lead it to moderation and compromise. The alternative could be quite nasty.

That sort of speech would get the undivided attention of the Muslim world. Anything else will lend credibility to the Islamists and foster triumphalism. Thus far, Obama's efforts to propitiate the "Muslim world" have made the administration's future work all the harder. Iran is convinced that the administration needs it to help out in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has all the less incentive to abandon its central goal of developing nuclear weapons. Pakistan is in the midst of a bloody civil war forced upon it by the United States. After Obama leaned on the Israelis to halt settlement construction, the Palestinian Authority's President Mahmoud Abbas left Washington convinced that Obama will force out the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the next two years.

 

For his trouble, Obama will get more bloodshed in Pakistan, more megalomania from Iran, more triumphalism from the Palestinians, and less control over Iraq and Afghanistan. Of all the available bad choices, Obama has taken the worst. It is hard to imagine any consequence except a steep diminution of American influence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is, that Obama is sickenly arrogant about having a "gift" of

 

persuasion.

 

By showing weakness, Obama will be encouraging more harsh actions against Israel.

 

The next time terrorists take American or Israeli hostages, I expect Obama will personally go apologize

 

to them and give them a bailout. Then, after the terrorists laugh and behead the hostages,

 

Obama will blame it on Bush and Rush LImbaugh.

 

Otrauma's failed policies are mounting up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BillyJack

Well people who follow Obama like he is a God cant really think for themselves they are like band wagon fans. They must be from pittsburgh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason the Retards you Alex Jonesians always C&P always have made-up names?

 

Other than the fact the gov't is out to kill them for revealing its true plans, of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Barack Obama gave generally well-received address to the Islamic world in Cairo, and it covered a lot of ground (55 minutes’ worth, to be exact). But expect some attention to be paid to two things that were missing in all those words.

 

First, Mr. Obama never used the words terror, terrorist or terrorism. He decried extremist violence, and told his audience, at Cairo University and in the broader Islamic world beyond, that people of all religions should be able to agree with him that such violence can’t be condoned.

 

But he avoided using the words that have come to be associated with that violence, at least in the U.S. Why? Likely because terrorism has become a loaded term in the Middle East, where one person’s terrorist is seen as another person’s freedom fighter. It appears Mr. Obama chose to describe the method rather than use the word.

 

Second,he didn’t have a passage reminding his listeners that Americans have shed blood to protect Muslims in Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan, as Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested on this blog beforehand. Former Bush speechwriter Pete Wehner already has noted the absence of such a passage.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/0...t-use-in-cairo/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's horrible. Can't believe he didn't use the word terrorism. Everyone knows you've got to call it terrorism. What was he thinking?

 

I liked some of the other right-wing complaints today: it was long, Bush said some of the same things, and Obama might be sporting a mustache, even though you can't see it. Just trust me, it's there. And it's outrageous.

 

You know what else he should have said? Beef shwarma is a poor substitute for good old fashioned American ground beef.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's horrible. Can't believe he didn't use the word terrorism. Everyone knows you've got to call it terrorism. What was he thinking?

Honestly, I hate the word "terrorist" as it's been popularized and promulgated the last 8 years and the fact he didn't use it all by itself makes the speech a success to me.

 

What exactly makes one a "terrorist" anyway?

 

Aren't murder and rape terrible and terrifying?

 

So aren't those guys "terrorists"?

 

What about arsonists? They create terror.

 

Drunk drivers? Bad drivers? Road rage?

 

All terrifying things. Much more terrifying, terrible and far more likely to kill any one of us than the phantom menace of "the terrorists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, I'd give the speech a B+. I think he's got the right idea though: going after the population of younger, more moderate Muslims - especially in places like Iran, which is overwhelmingly young - and trying to engage them. It's about ratcheting down the rhetoric and trying to set the stage for meaningful solutions to serious problems. We'll see how he follows up, but the people in these countries, while suspicious of any American effort, certainly trust and admire Obama more than any US president in recent memory. He's got a real opening, and speeches like this help.

 

Too bad the problems are so intractable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parts of his speech were pretty good, other parts not so much.

 

The biggest problem is, Obama cold shoulders and tries to bully Israel into

 

concessions for peace, and doesn't ask anything

 

of the Palestinian and Hamas terrorists.

 

Next, I suppose Obama will give the terrorists a bailout.

 

And the money will disappear, like with AIG and the Auto companies etc.

 

Of course, Acorn recieved money in a bail out too.

 

And, of course, the money disappeared, too.

 

And mz the pussy and Al, the liberals' mod, and Heck don't say nothin'

 

Obama is on the verge of encouraging terrorists to go after

Israel because they sense he will not support Israel in a war.

 

He won't even support our Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next, I suppose Obama will give the terrorists a bailout.

 

Remember when I suggested you were losing your grip on reality, and cited "outlandish" theories you may or may not yet have dreamed up? This would have fit in seamlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
The biggest problem is, Obama cold shoulders and tries to bully Israel into

 

concessions for peace, and doesn't ask anything

 

of the Palestinian and Hamas terrorists.

From Obama's speech:

 

"Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

 

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist."

And there was the section about Holocaust denial:

 

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when I suggested you were losing your grip on reality, and cited "outlandish" theories you may or may not yet have dreamed up? This would have fit in seamlessly. mz the pussy

********************************************

 

Remember when I said I was more of a comedian? And remember when I said you had little sense of humor,

 

and you were never funny? (you were funny once or twice...)... well, this fits it seamlessly, too.

 

 

Albeit sarcastic, my line about a bailout for terrorists was funny.

 

I know, you don't get it....

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

spacer.gif

QUOTE (calfoxwc @ Jun 5 2009, 02:46 AM) post_snapback.gifThe biggest problem is, Obama cold shoulders and tries to bully Israel into

 

concessions for peace, and doesn't ask anything

 

of the Palestinian and Hamas terrorists.

********************************************************************

Well, Al, he gave the cold shoulder to the Israelis.

 

And now, he gives a speech to be friends with Muslims, which is fine. And the parts you posted from his speech are the parts I thought were very good.

 

But, to equate equal rights for blacks in slavery, segregation etc, to the Palestian terrorists is asinine - just a pitiful moral equivelency that is so invalide the terrorists

surely laughed at.

 

And the part of his speech about the Holocaust? Terrific. Pres Bush didn't deny the Holocaust either.

 

What I found ridiculous, though, is Otrauma not mentioning that ages old hatred

led to the Palestinians not having their own state back in the 40's when Israel was created. Maybe he doesn't know about that.

 

Did Obama ask Iran or Syria to stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah ? No.

 

He only appealed to those who shoot rockets into towns where there are sleeping children to not do that because it's wrong.

 

He didn't even mention that it's always Israeli children.

 

In fact, Otrauma has dropped the U.S. demand that Hamas not be included

in negotiations despite the fact that Hamas is determined to murder Israelis.

 

And, with his demanding of the cessation of settlements on the West Bank,

apparently he wants peace through Israel giving up the West Bank.

 

Perhaps he doesn't know how the West Bank was lost in the first place.

 

Obama NOW has Muslim roots that he referred to in his speech. During the campaign, saying he had Muslim roots was met with denial and anger. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

BTW, Iran, Hamas, Syria, Hezbollah... they KNOW the violence is worng. THEY DON'T CARE.

 

Obama is too naive to be president. And I still expect his ORIGINAL birth certificate to see the light of day one day.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry Picking, Dan. You picked Vietnam as proof of your point.

 

But WWII was a war, and it made a dramatic difference in the world.

 

I know, maybe you and Obama could go to al-quaida and have tea and crumpets,

 

and give them great big smoochies, and they would decide that violence is wrong,

 

and then we could all live in a peaceful world. :rolleyes:

 

"Everything is beautiful, when libs have their own waaaaayyyyyy "

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
But, to equate equal rights for blacks in slavery, segregation etc, to the Palestian terrorists is asinine - just a pitiful moral equivelency that is so invalide the terrorists

surely laughed at.

The point was that nonviolent protest is the way to attain political rights. That's why Obama didn't limit himself to the civil rights struggle in America; he cited a bunch of examples:

 

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

By your argument, any of these comparisons are "asinine" because the Palestinians' struggle isn't as morally pure. But that's precisely Obama's point: the Palestinians are tarnishing their own moral authority by resorting to violence.

 

And, with his demanding of the cessation of settlements on the West Bank,

apparently he wants peace through Israel giving up the West Bank.

If you believe in a two state solution, almost all of the West Bank will have to be ceded for the creation of a Palestinian state. Continued settlement expansion only makes the creation of a Palestinian state more difficult, so it's a very logical step to have Israel commit to a settlement freeze. It's something Yitzhak Rabin did in the early 90's, and it's something Israel committed to as part of the 2002 Road Map for Peace.

 

So the real beef with that part of Obama's speech comes from people like Netanyahu, who don't support a two state solution. Maybe you agree with him, but then you're parting ways with presidents Obama and Bush, as well as the past 18 or so years of US foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is funny, CLEARLY the members who have vehemently disliked Obama will look at anything he says or does in a negative light.

 

Really Obama's only clear position was about open negotiation led by action not based in violence. I did like that he has seperated the extremists from the Muslims.

 

Israel and the Palestinions are both party to the problem, the right wing in israel and the Palestinions who are using violence and the position Israel does not have a right to exist.

 

This is a PR war that must be led by our president first and HOPEFULLY policy second......... The Arabs dont hate "Americans" they hate a lot of our positions and policies concerning Israel/Palestinions. I would not be fond of a country that had military bases all over the continent I live in. We have a ton of bases there almost like a occupying force or colonial empire.

 

We have to correctly wage a PR campaign and that is EXACTLY what he is doing CORRECTLY for once.

All of this STUPID discourse on our POTUS groveling and the perception of "strength" coming from Rush/Hannity types is so chest beating stupid and meaningless that only fuels the young moderates there against us.

 

Its like the right wing has a self esteem issue, if you have a healthy sense of self you dont need to beat your chest and always put out the perception you are tough.... Usually that means you are insecure when you behave that way. We have ZERO need to beat our chest because our country should already know we are completely secure with out military/economic strength.

 

The right wing dissection and criticisms of Obama's performances and speech are like the slow, insecure school yard bully trying to criticize Ghandi for "talking" about the problems in an effective way versus chest thumping and grunting.

 

I think some therapy would do Rush or Hannity types some benefit. I am sure they think "talking" about their problems and accepting FIRST some responsibility is well "sissy" like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baloney, Sev.

 

The school yard bully is Iran, and Obama is the timid, kid who openly gives Israel the cold shoulder

 

and appeals to the bully for acceptance.

 

School yard bullies love to start fights with the weaker kids.

 

And Al, I am fine with a two state solution. The Palestinians could have had their own country

 

years ago with the creation of Israel. But their hate drove them to rebel against it. Big mistake.

 

The West Bank overlooks Israel, and would be a strategic huge victory for Hama extremists to launch

 

attacks and missiles. Israel took the West Bank out of self-defense when they were declared war on.

 

The UN couldn't care less, it seems, with the continued violence against Israel - they have done nothing.

 

But to say to the extremists "your violence is bad" and then demand Israel give up the West Bank...

 

is telling. Like I said, read Obama's speech to the Muslim world, then Google "Obama Israel cold shoulder"

 

and see how many hits you get. I didn't make it up, it's very easy to discover and prove to yourself.

 

For Obama to demand that Israel give up the West Bank for peace as the Palestinians get their own

 

country, he is ignoring the Hamas problems in the Gaza Strip. Israel gave that back, and Hamas

 

happily used it as a closer base to kill innocent Israelis.

 

What assurance is there that Hamas will not be a threat from a Palestinian state that includes the West Bank?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Israeli West-Bank barrier is a barrier being constructed by the State of Israel, consisting of a network of fences with vehicle-barrier trenches surrounded by an on average 60 meters wide exclusion area (90%) and up to 8 meters high concrete walls (10%).[1] It is located mainly within the West Bank, partly along the 1949 Armistice line, or "Green Line" between Israel and Jordan which now demarcates the West Bank. As of April 2006[update], the length of the barrier as approved by the Israeli government is 703 kilometers (436 miles) long. Approximately 58.04% has been constructed, 8.96% is under construction, and construction has not yet begun on 33% of the barrier.[2]The Jerusalem Post reported in July 2007 that the barrier may not be fully constructed until 2010, seven years after it was originally supposed to be completed.[3]

 

The barrier is a highly controversial project. Supporters argue that the barrier is a necessary tool protecting Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombing attacks, that increased significantly during the al-Aqsa Intifada;[4] it has been one major factor behind the significantly reduced number of incidents of suicide bombings from 2002 to 2005;[5]

 

Opponents argue that the barrier is an illegal attempt to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security,[6] violates international law,[7] has the intent or effect to pre-empt final status negotiations,[8] and severely restricts Palestinians who live nearby, particularly their ability to travel freely within the West Bank and to access work in Israel.[8] In a 2004 finding, the International Court of Justice declared construction of the wall "contrary to international law."[9]

 

Settler opponents, by contrast, condemn the wall for appearing to renounce the Jewish claim to the whole of Eretz Israel.[10]

 

Two similar barriers, the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier and the Israeli-built[11] 40-foot (12 m) wall separating Gaza from Egypt (temporarily breached on January 23, 2008), have been much less controversial.[12]

********************************************************************************

**

Too bad the "international court" won't rule that Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-quaida terrorist activities are "contrary to international law"....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cal Iran is not a "bully"... WE destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan BOTH BORDERING countries to Iran....

 

Cal WE tried to stop DEMOCRACY in Iran...... WE have Huge military bases in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,Turkey, Afghanistan.... etc basically completely surrounding Iran not the other way around.

 

Israel and the U.S. are basically connected by a ambilical cord so you might as well count Israel as a U.S. outpost in the Arab world.

 

WE are the Bully with all of our military bases and economic/political manipulation in that region because of Oil. There is a real legitimate reason why the Arabs are not fond of us.

 

Hearts and Minds..... PR...... Marketing is what is needed as well as a scalable decrease in prescence and political manipulation. Focus on ourselves a bit more would not be a bad thing.

 

Think about being surrounded by a foreign nation militarily, watching it destroy your bordering nations, knowing that it is deeply involved in your domestic politics stopping democracy as well as all of your neighboring countries, taking your natural rescources while telling you that you are not allowed to develop the same weapons they already have.... O and calling your nation part of the Axis of Evil... WE ARE THE BULLY

 

Its hard to accept that WE are part of the major problem but that is part of correcting the course... accepting our problem first. We are far from perfect its not a big deal to accept our shortcomings. It does not diminish our nation in fact I think it shows our strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cal Iran is not a "bully"

 

Correct. We are the bully, I agree. NORMALLY. But Iran is led by an idiot/truly sick person slash group of people, so I'm not sure I mind bullying that fcuktard around.

 

Like in school, I was never a bully nor was I picked on. I never ever wanted to condone the actions of the bully, but every so often there was the bully's "libidinal object" that I just didn't mind watch getting picked on for whatever reason. Iran's gov't, for me, seems to be that kid.

 

I don't think Noam would like my post very much. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. We are the bully, I agree. NORMALLY. But Iran is led by an idiot/truly sick person slash group of people, so I'm not sure I mind bullying that fcuktard around.

 

Like in school, I was never a bully nor was I picked on. I never ever wanted to condone the actions of the bully, but every so often there was the bully's "libidinal object" that I just didn't mind watch getting picked on for whatever reason. Iran's gov't, for me, seems to be that kid.

 

I don't think Noam would like my post very much. :)

Agree. He is a dangerous man who I believe would use the Nuke against Israel. He (and the other crazies) that run Iran are after power, they are now the most powerful in the area militarily and also economically strong due to oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I can agree with. Spread the word, Muslims are feeling frisky these days so everyone be careful. Here’s the true Islamic doctrine regarding Christians and Jews:

 

 

Not exactly what they’re trying to sell you over here is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the true Islamic doctrine regarding Christians and Jews

 

Why is it so hard to understand that guys like that are to Islam as a whole as this clown is to Catholicism.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...