Obama's speech to the Muslim world

Politics International Politics
21

I agree that violations of women’s rights (as well as many fundamental human rights) is a serious problem in many Islamic societies. But the first step in addressing this problem and many others is for the US to extend a hand of friendship to the Islamic world and to work with them, rather than against them. Sure, it’ll be a long, tedious process, but unlike counter-productive antagonistic and confrontational means (as have happened in the past), this approach – the building of mutual trust and respect – will have a better chance at success in the long run.

It blows me away that an American president is actually speaking to Muslims like this…in a way I’d hoped for decades that an American president would do. Clinton came close, but Obama is coming closer.

22

[quote=“lbksig”]

I think it’s a good plan for President Obama to try and rebuild bridges with the Muslim world, but he in a way he is continuing his predecessor’s fixation that the Muslim world is the same as the Arab world. If he wants to show Muslims that we don’t think they are all the same, wouldn’t that have been better served by showing up in a non-Arab country like Indonesia, Pakistan, India or Bangladesh? Maybe scratch Pakistan but the other countries should safe to visit. The Middle East is only 16% of the Muslims in the world while South and South East Asia comprise 34%.

I get that the Middle East has Medina and Mecca for the Sunnis and Najef for the Shiites, but why the focus on the Arab portion of the Muslim faith all the time? Wouldn’t it be better to show the Muslim world that we know the majority of them don’t live in the Middle East region and that 98% of them are friendly people with 2% being fucked up extremists with lots of oil (Saudis and Kuwaitis)? I think President Obama’s message would improve the perception of the US by average Muslims in Indonesia than in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.[/quote]

The Middle East may have 16% of the Muslims in the world, but not 16% of the political, economic, military etc importance in the Muslim world. The Arabs and Iranians are the people the approach is really aimed at, “Muslim world” rhetoric aside. The speech wouldn’t have had close to the same impact if given in the places that you mention.

23

The Saudis refused to shake his hand:

liveleak.com/view?i=8ca_1244063181

from the live leak description of the vid:

[quote]Today POTUS, or PrezBO as I like to call him, paid his first visit in the Middle East this week to Saudi Arabia. This video from a bit of him on the “Welcome Line” with King Abdullah CLEARLY shows that few there want to acknowledge him on that line. Watch in slow motion that Barack clearly extends his hands several times, yet nobody accepts his hand. He finally does get a response from the last More…man in this brief clip. I’ve recorded it in slow motion so you can clearly see that he gets no love from the first 3 or 4 folks in the line. They only extend their hand for King Abdullah.
[/quote]

Maybe it’s because he was black. Or because Bush didn’t invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11.

24

[quote=“Jaboney”]
Your point is very silly and politically immature.[/quote]Whatever, man. You talk about the president’s responsibility to protect US citizens. What about the responsibility of the leaders of other nations?

[quote]What would you do, send the marines after every rapist?[/quote]That would be better than sending the marines after nations that have WMD when your own nation is armed with WMD to the teeth. "We have WMD, but if you try to get some, too, we’ll send in the marines. But rape and mistreat every women in your country, and well, we’ll offer partnership to those who at least let them go to school. It’s a fucking joke. These people do not deserve partnership or financial support in any form so long as they will insist treating women like that.

[quote]Education and economic empowerment are the closest things we’ve got to ‘magic bullets’ when it comes to improving the lives of women. [/quote]No, that’s not true. The US gives billions to these people all the time. Besides, the US doesn’t have a track record of using “magic bullets” and as of now, they are still using very real bullets.

[quote]So, if engagement and soft power don’t make sense to you, what policies/ practices are you recommending?[/quote]Where did I say that engagement and soft power does not make sense? It’s simple, I would own up to what he said in his speech: “But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors.”

Barbarians? Partnership with barbarians? Never mind sending billions over there on an ongoing basis.

“But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. …I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”

This is just all too ironic for my taste.

marboulette

25

too long to qoute but worth looking at: A take on how different newspapers in the Muslim world reacted to the speech:
memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD238409

26

[quote=“marboulette”]In any case, Obama seems a lot more adamant about certain things compared with women rights which are inexistent in many parts of the world, including Islam. He make it clear that “America will not close their eyes” on certain things, meanwhile he offers partnership to countries who will let women go to school. That’s cool… If you’re going to have to marry a 56 yo fat asshole at the age of 15, you might as well have the right to go to school. :unamused: Not sure when you’ll have time for that since you’ll be having a baby at 16 or 17 years old. :s

marboulette[/quote]

Do you honestly think Obama doesn’t want full equality for women, including the right not to wear a veil or be forced into marriage? The question is, what’s the best way to achieve that equality. Ostracizing countries doesn’t improve the welfare of its citizens – look at N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba.

Do you honestly think Obama could start to solve the most serious problems between the Muslim world and the US by criticizing every aspect of how women in the Muslim world are treated? I think the way he made the statement about education for women will be more palatable to the Muslim world, and that’s necessary when trying to start dialogue with them. Pushing for education for women is a reasonable first goal. Once women are educated they will be more empowered. Once they are empowered, they will be in a better position to improve their own positions in life, reject the veil if desired, reject arranged marriages if desired and so on.

Furthermore, there are other goals too, not just women’s rights (as important as those are) – solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, pacifying and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, democratization, and reducing terrorism. All of these require building bridges, not hurling insults and imperatives.

You can’t make progress by simply being openly confrontational about everything. The last 8 years should have taught you that. :wink:

27

Marboulette:

If you cannot see the difference between a nation such as the US having wmds and one such as Saddam’s Iraq or the mullah’s Iran, then one merely hopes that some day you are forced to live in such a nation to better hone your abilities to differentiate. Jaboney is right.

28

[quote=“dantesolieri”]Marboulette:

If you cannot see the difference between a nation such as the US having wmds and one such as Saddam’s Iraq or the mullah’s Iran, then one merely hopes that some day you are forced to live in such a nation to better hone your abilities to differentiate. Jaboney is right.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense to me. The US are the only people to have used nuclear weapon against another nation. And, Saddam did not kill as many people in the middle east as the US did. Just look at what they did in Baghdad in 93. The US has shown over and over that they have no qualms about using WMD. You trust them with nukes? Good for you. I don’t.

And DB, I agree with you. My point is merely that if you’re going to talk about having a responsibility for the whole world, I’d say that sending the marines because of how the women are treated would make more sense than sending the marines over to find some WMD or in a lame attempt to avoid another terrorist attack that would cost the lives of another 3000 US civilians. For one, going over there and killing people only fuels the anger and it certainly isn’t making the US a safer place, the opposite, in fact. And for two, there are millions of women being treated like shit. Not just a few thousand of them. But 3000 US citizens appears to be a more worthy thing to fight for than millions of women. Oh well…

Korea? Yeah, send the marines over there to free the people and I’ll support that, too.

29

You’re sure about that one? :roflmao:

How 'bout we ask the Kurds, or the Iranians he was at war with for 10 years…

30

You’re sure about that one? :roflmao:

How 'bout we ask the Kurds, or the Iranians he was at war with for 10 years…[/quote]

We get our figures from different places, obviously. And, the US has been participating in wars for far more than ten years, if that’s how you really want to look at it.

marboulette

31

[quote=“marboulette”][quote=“dantesolieri”]Marboulette:

If you cannot see the difference between a nation such as the US having wmds and one such as Saddam’s Iraq or the mullah’s Iran, then one merely hopes that some day you are forced to live in such a nation to better hone your abilities to differentiate. Jaboney is right.[/quote]

That doesn’t make any sense to me. The US are the only people to have used nuclear weapon against another nation.

And, Saddam did not kill as many people in the middle east as the US did. Just look at what they did in Baghdad in 93. The US has shown over and over that they have no qualms about using WMD. You trust them with nukes? Good for you. I don’t.
[/quote]

The US didn’t use nuclear weapons in 1945 out of the blue. And there’s a lot of history since 1945–1945–you’d have to explain if you want to make that argument. The US with its huge arsenal of nukes hasn’t been blasting them off like popguns since then. If you would feel more comfortable with nuclear weapons in some of the other hands mentioned and out of US hands, suit yourself. It’s a feeling you’re not going to get to experience though.

[quote]And DB, I agree with you. My point is merely that if you’re going to talk about having a responsibility for the whole world, I’d say that sending the marines because of how the women are treated would make more sense than sending the marines over to find some WMD or in a lame attempt to avoid another terrorist attack that would cost the lives of another 3000 US civilians. For one, going over there and killing people only fuels the anger and it certainly isn’t making the US a safer place, the opposite, in fact. And for two, there are millions of women being treated like shit. Not just a few thousand of them. But 3000 US citizens appears to be a more worthy thing to fight for than millions of women. Oh well…

Korea? Yeah, send the marines over there to free the people and I’ll support that, too.[/quote]

That’s a crazy argument. For one we could send every marine ever recruited to places where woman are treated badly and it could never make an appreciable difference. What are you going to post a marine in everyone’s living room to make sure all the woman are treated well? If anything doesn’t make sense that must be it. Finding WMD’s or fighting terrorists, though you may not agree with it, is at least possible within some stretch of the imagination, and by some measures at least is working.

32

Insane. The US have been in Afghanistan for 8 years, and the situation of Afghani women has hardly improved. The situation for women may even have become worse in post-war Iraq.
War cannot solve the world’s problems, and the US does not fight wars for that reason either.

33

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
If you would feel more comfortable with nuclear weapons in some of the other hands mentioned and out of US hands, suit yourself.[/quote]I don’t feel comfortable with such weapons in anybody’s hands. This includes the US, especially since they are the ones who proved to be willing and able to drop em on civilians. To me, a Japanese life, an American life or an Iraqi life is all the same.

The old school camp believes that Truman dropped the bomb to, ultimately, save lives. The revisionists, OTOH, offer good arguments that do not necessarily include the willingness to save lives. Personally, I take a bit from both camps. Pearl Harbor and the millions of soldiers killed in Japan added up to making Japan a very scary opponent. It eventually became a damned if you do, and damned if you don’t kind of position for Truman.

[quote]That’s a crazy argument.[/quote]I know, I know. But I think you, and others, misread what I’m trying to convey. I perfectly realize that sending the marines anywhere to force ethical treatment of women upon those who treat women like objects would be futile. What I’m saying is that it would be no less futile than fighting the decentralized antagonists that are terrorists. Doing that is making America less safe for everyone and thus, it is not only futile, but aggravating the situation at the same time.

The other part of my point is, as mentioned, that I find it ironic that a nation who A-Has used WMD, and B- who has a huge arsenal of nukes, would go after anyone who tries to do the same thing. You might not trust nukes in the hands of Abdullah Mohamed and who have you, but these people don’t feel overly safe with the US pointing their nukes at them, either. Moreover, terrorism based in Islam is driven by a strong desire for the US to pack it up and leave them alone because it’s been many decades since they didn’t have to put up with the US embroiling wars in the middle east.

[quote]Finding WMD’s or fighting terrorists, though you may not agree with it, is at least possible within some stretch of the imagination, and by some measures at least is working.[/quote]You’re right, this is what I do not agree with. It is not working. It’s making things worse. Moreover, after 8 years, no one is able to agree what this damn war is about. In other words, no one knows for sure what this non sense is all about.

[quote] Insane. The US have been in Afghanistan for 8 years, and the situation of Afghani women has hardly improved. The situation for women may even have become worse in post-war Iraq.[/quote]It’s natural since this is not what the US is fighting for. In fact, and as mentioned, no one really knows what the US is fighting for. One thing is for sure, though, if it is to make America a safer place, they are screwing up massively because they are doing the opposite of making America a safer place by not keeping the troops home 8 years ago.

[quote]War cannot solve the world’s problems, and the US does not fight wars for that reason either.[/quote]Do you even know what the US is fighting for?

Again, I fully realize that going to war to free millions of women from barbarians would probably be an unsurmoutable task, but it would be no more unsurmountable than trying to keep Americans safe by threatening and attacking anyone who tries to appropriate WMDs, and by chasing desentralized terrorists around the globe. They are breeding terrorists as opposed to winning a war against them.

My opinion is that while trying to free Islamic women or people in Korea seems “crazy”, what the US is doing now is equally crazy. Obama tells everyone that he will bring the troops home and he makes it clear that he seeks an end to the violence, but that is coupled with a clear threat to those who will go near WMDs. So… If you are going to engage your country into “insane” wars, might as well do it for a noble cause such as freeing Islamic women or the whole population of countries such as Korea.

But no, we bomb and threaten those who seek to defend themselves from the imminent threat the US poses to any and all nations on earth, meanwhile we hope Islamic women will be allowed to go to school. Now that’s what’s really insane, IMO. Obama’s speech is nothing more than an offer of peace, but only to those who agree to cease and desist, and I’m not buying it.

marboulette

34

Former Survivor contestant and current right-wing TV personality Elisabeth Hasselbeck makes the false claim that Obama didn’t say “democracy” during his speech.

You’ll have to do better than that, righties.

35

You do realize that back when the Christians in Europe were burning libraries and suppressing thought, it was the Muslims who preserved the works of the ancient Greek scholars and made advances in science and medicine?

In modern Islam, I agree that there is a big problem: political oppression in their ranks is causing serious setbacks in their achievements. But the best way to get them back on the road toward accomplishing good things in the world is not to antagonize them as Bush did (that only pushes them farther back and foments greater extremism and anti-Western sentiment), but to extend a stance of sincere willingness to work with them toward building a better world.

Most of the Islamic world detests the extremist terrorist element within them. But the Bush approach was ham-fisted and sent a message that the US opposed all of Islam, which led to a growth of extremism and the rise of wackos like Ahmedinejad (who never would have been elected if the US hadn’t antagonized Iran at a time they were becoming more pro-Western).

Obama’s message is one of respect for and understanding of the Islamic world, and that is the best way to begin talking with them and solving problems together. It is refreshing and encouraging to see a speech like this come from a US president. Bush could never have done it.

36

Yes, I do, which is why I would say my ancestors a millenium ago were mostly a bunch of mouth-breathers too. The difference is we’ve moved forward, much of the Islamic world hasn’t.

[quote]In modern Islam, I agree that there is a big problem: political oppression in their ranks is causing serious setbacks in their achievements. But the best way to get them back on the road toward accomplishing good things in the world is not to antagonize them as Bush did (that only pushes them farther back and foments greater extremism and anti-Western sentiment), but to extend a stance of sincere willingness to work with them toward building a better world.

Most of the Islamic world detests the extremist terrorist element within them. But the Bush approach was ham-fisted and sent a message that the US opposed all of Islam, which led to a growth of extremism and the rise of wackos like Ahmedinejad (who never would have been elected if the US hadn’t antagonized Iran at a time they were becoming more pro-Western).[/quote]

I agree with you in the sense that we shouldn’t be antagonising them. That’s what I said in my previous post. Let them go back to their own inanity.

Why should we respect them?

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/03/muslim_inventions_nobel_prizes.html

[quote]Albert Camus, neither Arab nor Muslim, happened to have been born in Algeria which at that time was a French Colony; his father was French, his mother - Spanish. An accurate ethnic designation for Camus is pied noir.
Elias James Corey, neither Arab nor Muslim, was born and raised in America of Lebanese Christian Phoenicians. Many Christian Lebanese do not identify themselves as Arab but rather as descendants of the ancient Canaanites and prefer to be called Phoenicians.
Sir Peter Brian Medawar, neither Arab nor Muslim, was born in Brazil of a British mother and a Lebanese Christian father. Medawar was raised and educated in the UK and was in fact an atheist.
Ferid Murad, neither Arab nor Muslim, was born and raised in America of an Albanian Muslim father and an American Baptist mother. Murad was baptized Episcopalian in college, his wife is Presbyterian, and two of his daughters married Jews.
This leaves Naguib Mahfouz, Abdus Salam, and Ahmed Zewail. So three Muslims won the Nobel Prize in Science and literature. Out of 1.2-1.5 billion Muslims.[/quote]

(There were four additional recipients for the bullshit “Peace” prize.)

[quote]It should also be pointed out that of the three Muslims only Salam was devout. Mahfouz and Zewail were brought up in a secular environment. Zewail is Muslim in name only. Mahfouz in fact was stabbed by Muslims for his anti-Islamic mutterings.

Both Zawail and Salam did their research in non-Muslim countries and spent almost the entirety of their lives outside of Islamic countries. So much for “Muslim” Nobel Prize Winners. I doubt any of Zawail’s colleagues ever think of him as Muslim.
[/quote]

I may not want to antagonise these mouth-breathers, but that doesn’t mean anyone should consider them worthy of respect. It’s not an either/or situation. It’s like you don’t walk up to your five year old kid and punch him in the face, but you also don’t give him the weekly grocery budget and tell him to go shopping for you because he’s going to come back with a bag full of ice cream, chocolate and potato chips.

When the Muslim world can show that it’s collectively of a higher intellect than the five year old kid above, then maybe we can sing a different song.

37

Why should we respect them?[/quote]
Because you get farther in this world by treating others with respect than with contempt.

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar (or however that saying goes).

38

Or you pander to, and appease, despotic regimes at the expense of your core philosophical values. Western civilisation belittles and debases itself by 1) pandering to these cretins for money/oil, 2) treating them like they are equals. Like I said, three Nobel Prizes for 1.2-1.5 billion people. If they didn’t have oil, they wouldn’t be even remotely important. If we got off oil, a large part of this problem would go away and we could let these idiots go back to their great contribution to mankind – cutting each other’s heads off in the desert – while the civilised world went on making and inventing things, curing diseases and producing works of art and culture.

39

Despotic regimes? Cretins? Idiots? What the hell are you talking about?

Are you claiming that all 1.5 billion muslims on earth are cretins, idiots and despots? Even people such as:

Dr. Haleh Esfandiari (Persian: هاله اسفندیاری) (b. March 3, 1940) is an Iranian American academic and the Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. Her areas of expertise include Middle Eastern women’s issues, contemporary Iranian intellectual currents and politics, and democratic developments in the Middle East, and she frequently writes, lectures, and organizes symposia on these topics. In 2007 she was detained, in solitary confinement, in Iran’s Evin Prison for more than 110 days
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haleh_Esfandiari

or

Shirin Ebadi (Persian: شیرین عبادی - Širin Ebâdi; born 21 June 1947) is an Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and founder of Children’s Rights Support Association in Iran. On October 10, 2003, Ebadi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her significant and pioneering efforts for democracy and human rights, especially women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. She was the first ever Iranian to have received the prize.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

or

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890 – 20 January 1988) (Pashto/Urdu: خان عبد الغفار خان, Hindi: ख़ान अब्दुल ग़्फ़्फ़ार ख़ान) was a Pashtun political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule in India. A lifelong pacifist, a devout Muslim,[1]and a follower of Mahatma Gandhi, he was also known as Badshah Khan (also Bacha Khan, Urdu, Pashto: lit., “King Khan”), and Sarhaddi Gandhi (Urdu, Hindi lit., “Frontier Gandhi”). In 1985 he was nominated for the Nobel peace prize. In 1987 he became the first person not holding the citizenship of India to be awarded the Bharat Ratna, India’s highest civilian award
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Abdul_Ghaffar_Khan

or

Nafez Assaily (Arabic: نافذ العسيلي‎), born in 1956 in the West Bank, in the Old City of Jerusalem [1] grew up in Hebron, and is a noted Palestinian peace activist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafez_Assaily

and others of their ilk? Do you really believe that ALL Muslims are evil and should be insulted and shunned? Isn’t such an extreme view a little childish and ignorant?

Obama’s speech was not directed at despots. It was directed at 1/4 of the world’s population. It was an attempt to tell them that, despite the past 8 years of attacks, we don’t hate ALL muslims, but want to work together with them to strive for peace and stability. Isn’t that a sensible approach, or do you really believe ALL muslims are evil?

40

The Chinese have produced five Nobel Prize winners, four in science and one in literature. The four science winners are all American citizens who did their work in the US (one was born there).

There are six Indian prize winners; two in Literature and four in science. One of the Lit winners, VS Naipul, was born and raised in Trinidad. One of the science winners is a Pakistani Muslim who did his work at Cambridge, two of them are US citizens who did their work in the States, leaving one who was an Indian citizen who did his work in India.

Basically, the Nobel Prizes up to now have been a preserve of Europeans and their descendants (including, yes. very disproportionate numbers of Jews- all of them Ashkenazi), because modern science has been a product of European culture.

There may be reasons to single out Muslim culture as more resistant to development than other non-European ones, but a list of Nobel Prize winners is not one of them.