Obama's Hypocrisy & America in the World

[kraychik]

It seems to me that the US was trying to mitigate against a pending riot.

In other words, the Obama administration has continued its policy of appeasement of Islamism, and as Romney said, apologise for American values. Reagan said something along these lines, and forgive me for paraphrasing, but if you want peace you can have it right now... all you need to do is surrender. America and the broader free world are dealing with sharks who smell blood (weakness), and as Obama and his team continue to bend over backwards to tolerate the intolerable, we shouldn't be surprised to see our enemies emboldened.

Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Trying to explain free expression to the dummies who are rioting in the streets over this would be futile.

This video was about a different incident earlier this year, but illustrates the kind of mentality in effect here. When you talk about trying to explain free expression to the ones rioting in the street, try and imagine trying to reason with this guy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kAVlnGMTU

-k

I think Obama is so narcissistic that he actually believes he can "reset" relations with Muslim-majority countries. He is so enamoured with his own charisma, so fooled by the cult of personality of yes men and yes women that surrounds him, that he thinks flashing his white teeth and making a speech will entice Muslims to love him and, by extension: America. He has no grasp of what he's dealing with: an ideology committed to conquest wrapped up as a religion and based on a set of values completely antithetical to those enshrined in the American constitution. Trying to explain freedom of speech and expression to Islamists? A futile endeavour to a sensible person, but not to Obama.

[BubberMiley]

America and the broader free world are dealing with sharks who smell blood (weakness), and as Obama and his team continue to bend over backwards to tolerate the intolerable, we shouldn't be surprised to see our enemies emboldened.

You have to embolden them so you can then target them with a drone strike.

[waldo]

You have to embolden them so you can then target them with a drone strike.

... or whoever's left out there!

[kraychik]

The killing of Osama Bin Laden doesn't change his policy of appeasement towards Islamism. He is continuing to fund the now Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt with foreign aid started in 1979 to underwrite the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, he refused to provide sufficient security at the Benghazi consulate because he was committed to maintaining a "low profile" in Libya (which led to the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans), he has released detainees from Guantanamo Bay which was resurfaced only to engage in more terrorism, he labelled Nidal Hassan's mass murder at Fort Hood "workplace violence", he acquiesced to Turkey's demand to exclude Israel from a NATO summit, apologising for the First Amendment, and on and on and on. This is appeasement by any honest measurement.

Here's a powerful and emotional video of Obama and Clinton being chastised by the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL for standing on their achievements and prioritising politics over their security:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1x-5pCSI84

Edited September 24, 2012 by kraychik

[waldo]

The killing of Osama Bin Laden doesn't change his policy of appeasement towards Islamism.

or the 20 or so other Al Qaeda leaders taken out... or... "whoever's left"?

He is continuing to fund the now Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt with foreign aid started in 1979 to underwrite the Israel-Egypt peace treaty

you'll need to sharpen your Republican talking points... the Romney campaign, Romney himself, severely criticized Obama for his response to a question asking about Egypt being a U.S. ally. You know, where Obama said in regards the new Eqypt government (ahem, the new Muslim Brotherhood government), that Egypt, "wasn't an ally, but it wasn't an enemy, either". Imagine all those Republicans... and Romney himself... having a meltdown over Obama not emphasizing Egypt as an American ally! Go figure!

[kraychik]

or the 20 or so other Al Qaeda leaders taken out... or... "whoever's left"?

Islamism is much, much, much bigger than Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

you'll need to sharpen your Republican talking points... the Romney campaign, Romney himself, severely criticized Obama for his response to a question asking about Egypt being a U.S. ally. You know, where Obama said in regards the new Eqypt government (ahem, the new Muslim Brotherhood government), that Egypt, "wasn't an ally, but it wasn't an enemy, either". Imagine all those Republicans... and Romney himself... having a meltdown over Obama not emphasizing Egypt as an American ally! Go figure!

Obama was later contradicted by the State Department via Victoria Nuland, who virtually stated that Egypt is in fact an ally when asked to comment on those very words from Obama's "not an ally, not an enemy" statement.

More importantly, however, the foreign aid from America is continuing to flow to Egypt while it is under control of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, as well as other Muslim majority countries that are largely hostile to American interests. Actions speak louder than words.

[dre]

If the US no longer performs the role of being an adult, then what will the rest of us do? Rely on the UN?

Leftists (North American Leftists in particular) have a tendency to equate dominant power: to them, the US, the Soviet Union, Islam, China are all the same. Big powers that want to dominate. Many Leftists see the US government (and Wall Street, American capitalism, Goldman Sachs) as the most powerful, dominant force.

To these Leftists, there is no difference between the RCMP and Hell's Angels. Both are "dominant forces".

I take a different worldview. I have no objection to "dominant force" as long as it is restricted, and a force for good. I see a difference between the US government, and the Iranian/Venezuelan/North Korean/Cuban governments. I see a difference between the RCMP, and the Hell's Angels.

-----

As the Australian PM John Howard famously said, "Be careful what you wish for. You may just get it." My fear is that Leftists may get their wish and see the US disappear as a world power. Under Obama, Rodham-Clinton and people like them, the US will become a country like Sweden - or Quebec.

And without the US, what will the rest of us do?

[Ludwig von Mises said that if the Soviet Union ever dominated the world, it would have to leave at least one small country with a free economy so that the Soviet bureaucrats would have some idea of true prices. I fear something worse.]

I take a different worldview. I have no objection to "dominant force" as long as it is restricted, and a force for good. I see a difference between the US government, and the Iranian/Venezuelan/North Korean/Cuban governments. I see a difference between the RCMP, and the Hell's Angels.

This is a false choice though. You make the assumption that if US influence decreases that theocracy and socialism will dominate. That doesnt seem to likely to me since corporate/business oriented governments are in place in virtually the entire modern world. Your Von Mises quote further illustrates this false choice. Either we have total US hegonemy, or total communism!!! I dont find that outlook credible.

Having said that it IS in the global interest for the US to be successfull. America has been

A more likely scenario in the near future is that influence will be wielded more equally between Europe, North America, and Asia.

[kraychik]

This is a false choice though. You make the assumption that if US influence decreases that theocracy and socialism will dominate. That doesnt seem to likely to me since corporate/business oriented governments are in place in virtually the entire modern world. Your Von Mises quote further illustrates this false choice. Either we have total US hegonemy, or total communism!!! I dont find that outlook credible.

Having said that it IS in the global interest for the US to be successfull. America has been

A more likely scenario in the near future is that influence will be wielded more equally between Europe, North America, and Asia.

False choice or not, Islamism is the common denominator of all the uprisings in the so-called "Arab Spring". The Muslim Brotherhood is the dominant faction securing control of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. These countries are all mobilising towards Islamism, and reasonable arguments can be advanced for placing at least part of the blame for these developments at the feet of the Obama administration.

[dre]

False choice or not, Islamism is the common denominator of all the uprisings in the so-called "Arab Spring". The Muslim Brotherhood is the dominant faction securing control of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Syria. These countries are all mobilising towards Islamism, and reasonable arguments can be advanced for placing at least part of the blame for these developments at the feet of the Obama administration.

I dont know if the muslim brotherhood qualifies as Islamist.

And this isnt just about Obama. Its about policy over many decades.

[kraychik]

I dont know if the muslim brotherhood qualifies as Islamist.

Thanks for this gem. I'm adding it to my signature.

[dre]

Thanks for this gem. I'm adding it to my signature.

Go ahead. The IB for the last couple of decades had been pushing for democracy, freedom of the press, individual freedoms etc. They have not advocated Islamic theocracy.

We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc

Whether the group really qualifies as Islamist or not would depend on your definition.

[kraychik]

Go ahead. The IB for the last couple of decades had been pushing for democracy, freedom of the press, individual freedoms etc. They have not advocated Islamic theocracy.

Of course, none of the above is true. It's actually the exact opposite. Again, thanks for the quote. It really tells us all we need to know about your credibility on this issue. The Muslim Brotherhood is all about theocracy, ergo, they are Islamists.

Whether the group really qualifies as Islamist or not would depend on your definition.

The term "Islamist" has a well-established definition.

Looks like you get your (mis)information from the same source as Obama's chief security advisor:

[dre]

Of course, none of the above is true. It's actually the exact opposite. Again, thanks for the quote. It really tells us all we need to know about your credibility on this issue. The Muslim Brotherhood is all about theocracy, ergo, they are Islamists.

Actually it is true. Thats exactly what the IB has done in various countries, and thats what their platform is.

I dont see any sign for example of Egypt turning into an islamic state like Saudi Arabia. I do think you will see more religious influence on policy but thats not necessarily islamism.

[August1991]

Whadda thread. More questions.

I dont see any sign for example of Egypt turning into an islamic state like Saudi Arabia. I do think you will see more religious influence on policy but thats not necessarily islamism.

Really?

And no doubt, like Black Dog, you believe that Muslim immigrants to Canada will integrate as all immigrants eventually do.

Proof?

Those Catholic women of the 1950s no longer cover their hair. The Muslim women who come here will do the same. Huh?

Black Dog, who covers their hair in Canada now? Young or old women? Why, in any time or any place, do women cover their hair?

I dont know if the muslim brotherhood qualifies as Islamist.

And this isnt just about Obama. Its about policy over many decades.

WTF?

How many women are members of the Muslim Brotherhood?

With members of the Leftist tribe, I fear that it is sometimes simply the name: Dre, would you defend an organization with the name Catholic Brotherhood? So dre, why do you question whether the "muslim brotherhood" is Islamist?

From "civil" rights to "social" justice, Leftists follow fads. IMV, there are rights and justice: no need to qualify.

Edited September 29, 2012 by August1991

[GostHacked]

That's better than the $70 million that was reported on the news program I saw yesterday; however, I'd rather they spend $70 million and include the reality of the existence of free speech in the U.S. - which is the point I was making.

Why would one need to air an ad in another country defending free speech at home in the USA? Seems a bit insecure of a so called mighty nation that prides itself on freedom, freedom fries and free speech.

Damage control propaganda is what it looks like.

[Guest American Woman]

Why would one need to air an ad in another country defending free speech at home in the USA?

Who said anything about "defending" free speech?

[GostHacked]

Who said anything about "defending" free speech?

You did with the post I replied to.

however, I'd rather they spend $70 million and include the reality of the existence of free speech in the U.S.

So what is the point of that statement if you are not defending free speech? I thought defending free speech was a good thing.

[Guest American Woman]

You did with the post I replied to.

No, I didn't. I said nothing about "defending" it in the post you were responding to.

So what is the point of that statement if you are not defending free speech? I thought defending free speech was a good thing.

What in that statement suggests "defending" to you?

Defending free speech for Americans within the U.S. is a good thing, which has clearly been my stand on this board. I will defend Americans' right to free speech within our country. I have no need to "defend" it outside the U.S., only to point out to people who expect otherwise that it is a freedom we enjoy here - and then only because there was an ad being aired by the government saying that the video doesn't speak for the government. If people in another country are under the mistaken impression that Americans are going to be held to their values/standards in the U.S., it would be good to set the record straight in no uncertain terms while pointing out that the video doesn't speak for the government.

In other words, there's nothing "defensive" about it. Quite the opposite.

[jbg]

Hugo Chavez to Obama: I'd vote for you, and you for me (link)

CARACAS (Reuters) - With both presidents facing tight re-election fights, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gave a surprise endorsement to Barack Obama on Sunday - and said the U.S. leader no doubt felt the same.

*******

He called former U.S. President George W. Bush a "drunk" and the "devil." After an initial overture to Obama came to nothing, he said the new president had disappointed progressives the world over and was the "shame" of Africans.

But Chavez was back in a conciliatory mood in a TV interview with friend and former vice president Jose Vicente Rangel.

Chavez's reputation lends a certain aura of prestige to the Obama campaign, and promises to propel Obama into the ranks of our great Presidents, along with fellow former Illinois resident Abraham Lincoln. He ranks with Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela whose reputations transcended both national boundaries and generations.

Chavez is overall a force for progress and liberation.

[Michael Hardner]

Whadda thread. More questions.

Really?

And no doubt, like Black Dog, you believe that Muslim immigrants to Canada will integrate as all immigrants eventually do.

Proof?

Those Catholic women of the 1950s no longer cover their hair. The Muslim women who come here will do the same. Huh?

There's no way to prove a speculation but let's look at it: why would this group end up with a different result than every other group that has ever come to this country ? Must be their DNA.

[dre]

Whadda thread. More questions.

Really?

And no doubt, like Black Dog, you believe that Muslim immigrants to Canada will integrate as all immigrants eventually do.

Proof?

Those Catholic women of the 1950s no longer cover their hair. The Muslim women who come here will do the same. Huh?

Black Dog, who covers their hair in Canada now? Young or old women? Why, in any time or any place, do women cover their hair?

WTF?

How many women are members of the Muslim Brotherhood?

With members of the Leftist tribe, I fear that it is sometimes simply the name: Dre, would you defend an organization with the name Catholic Brotherhood? So dre, why do you question whether the "muslim brotherhood" is Islamist?

From "civil" rights to "social" justice, Leftists follow fads. IMV, there are rights and justice: no need to qualify.

With members of the Leftist tribe, I fear that it is sometimes simply the name: Dre, would you defend an organization with the name Catholic Brotherhood? So dre, why do you question whether the "muslim brotherhood" is Islamist?

I dont "support them". I oppose all attempts mix religion with civil law or the administration of it. I dont have to support them to notice when people that have no knowledge of a subject make bogus claims.

From "civil" rights to "social" justice, Leftists follow fads. IMV, there are rights and justice: no need to qualify.

Edited September 30, 2012 by dre

[BubberMiley]

Black Dog, who covers their hair in Canada now? Young or old women? Why, in any time or any place, do women cover their hair?

Hutterites and orthodox Jews. I think it's a religious thing.