Obama must accept "the will of the Arab people"

[bleeding heart]

I will interested to see if some of Obama's supporters continue to vocally be against the Jews and in turn Israel.

Jewish-Americans are, by a margin that is unusual in the world of demographics, Obama/Democrat supporters.

Edited November 11, 2012 by bleeding heart

[jacee]

Except Palestine wasn't there first. The Ottoman Empire was. Allied soldiers died by the 10s of thousands to give the people of this region a chance to further their nationalistic ideals. That includes Arabs AND Jews. Not just Arabs. Plus, no conversation about the origins of the issues in the Levant can go forward w/o coming to terms with the actions of the Grand Mufti Haj al-Husseini.

How 'bout first just coming to terms with the practical necessities of daily living for the people of Gaza - food, water, housing, medical care, employment/opportunity/education.

How 'bout not punishing all of the people of Gaza - especially the children - for the actions of a few extremists ... or for the entire history of Jewish-Arab relations?

The reason opinions of the majority of decent people of the world have turned against the Israeli extremists now in power, including apparently the 70% of American Jews who voted for Obama, is the intransigence of Israel in refusing to negotiate reasonably with it's neighbours, and it's use of unreasonable force against civilians.

The simple minds that wait to be told by their masters what to think, who to hate, who to shoot or shoot down ... 'Muslim bad, Israel good' arhuuu (insert warlike grunt) ... tend to aggressively dominate the airwaves and online forums with their catastrophizing fearmongering.

As the results of the US election show, that's not the majority will of the people, most of whom are capable of more complex thought and recognize that the complex problem of Israel's existence as a tiny island of Jews in a sea of Arabs requires complex solutions. Most of all, it requires committment of both parties to lasting peaceful solutions, not warmongering demonization of the 'other'.

The only winners in war are the profiteers ... arms manufacturers and investors in the war industries ... the profiteers who have incited and profited from every war in history ... the 'masters' who incite the simple minds on both sides to kill each other for the profit of the wealthiest 1%.

/end rant.

Edited November 11, 2012 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Please read everything in my posts, I lay it out pretty well for everyone to understand. Start at he first post to fully understand my position. Not many people are replying because my points made are very well done and everyone agrees with me.

Far from that. I asked you to provide evidence for an assertion and you didn't reply.

I disagree with you, and furthermore I don't see where you get your ideas from. If you don't have a link, I can assume you just make them up.

[Argus]

The Muslim Brotherhood is the group that many people right and left were cheering for,

Many? I don't know of ANY. I don't recall anyone on right OR left who supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Argus]

I will interested to see if some of Obama's supporters continue to vocally be against the Jews and in turn Israel.

I'm sure there are some Obama voters who are anti-Semites. I'm equally sure there are a lot more anti-Semites who hate Obama.

Most Jews vote Democrat. Did you know that? I doubt they'd be doing that if they saw the Democratic Party as being against them.

I also find it scary that all the nations who had uprisings in the Arab Spring that Obama and many leftist organizations supported are now in power and bringing Sharia Law with them.

Many of these nations have never known any kind of government but dictatorship by corrupt elites. The people are, on the whole, not well-educated or sophisticated. They embrace Islamic parties because they presume/assume these men will be more upright and honest, being 'men of God'. As we've seen in other countries, it doesn't take long before these notions are disabused. Anyway, social and political upheaval is an ugly thing, but you rarely get a direct transition between that and perfect, harmonious democracy. And the only alternative was continued dictatorship forever.

[Michael Hardner]

Many? I don't know of ANY. I don't recall anyone on right OR left who supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

Certainly not on MLW. At best, they are regarded with suspicious open-mindedness.

The right- and left- leaning posters alike are hoping for moderates to rise up in these states IMO, even if they don't measure moderation in the same terms.

[DogOnPorch]

How 'bout first just coming to terms with the practical necessities of daily living for the people of Gaza - food, water, housing, medical care, employment/opportunity/education.

How 'bout not punishing all of the people of Gaza - especially the children - for the actions of a few extremists ... or for the entire history of Jewish-Arab relations?

...etc.

/end rant.

Gaza is run by Hamas...not a 'few extremists'. Gaza was handed over to the Arabs in 2005...they elected Hamas, apparently, over Fatah. But, as mentioned before, had the Mufti been hanged after WW2, there likely would have been no Arab-Israeli wars...at least at first.

[Guest]

The head of Fatah recently made a major concession to Israel during an interview. Perhaps in search of peace. He soon retracted it though, because they burned him in effigy in Gaza.

There will never be any kind of peace there while the Gaza strip is run by Hamas. For the singular reason that they are not in the least bit interested in peace.

[cybercoma]

Ummm. Yeah. Welcome back.

[WIP]

Now that Obama is once again President of the United States more accusations come to light questioning his heritage and Muslim upbringing. Let's put these to rest first, Obama is a Christian , is an American citizen and was born in America. I don't want to talk about that.

What I would like to see some talk about is the fact that your so called 'Muslim sympathiser' Obama has been the president who has expanded targeted killings without any regard for finding a means for due process, and because he's the Democrat, and has "Hussein" as his middle name, the Repugnants and their knee jerk conservative base are unable to criticize him on the basis of violating international law and civil rights at home!

The Muslim Brotherhood is the group that many people right and left were cheering for, the left were arguably even more vocal but both sides had supporters and now we see the true aims of the Muslim people who struggle to make the world an Islamic world. That is the goal of Islam. To turn the entire world to Islam, for everyone to become a Muslim and to Islam to rule everything, every nation to be a Sharia Law nation. The word Jihad itself means "struggle" and this is the worldwide Islamic struggle for all Muslims. There is a call for all Muslims to join this Jihad and more and more Muslims in the west are joining in. I'm not passing judgement one way or the other just listing the facts. Now that the west supported Muslim Brotherhood wish to enact Sharia Law as their legal system I wonder if they feel as though they've really stepped in it now.

So, who has the military empire that considers itself to have the right to invade any country, anywhere around the world that doesn't meet their demands? I'll give you a hint: it's not a Muslim country.

Let Egyptians decide for themselves what sort of government they should have, regardless of whether it's called a "Muslim Government." Turkey has a government also that is equivalent to the Muslim Brotherhood; but since they play ball with U.S. and Israeli interests, nothing is said about it! As for the rest of the M.E. - how many of these banana republic oil sheikdoms are propped up with the guns of the U.S. military? It's all about controlling the oil supply, not democracy! Otherwise, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Gulf Emirates would be pressured by the U.S. to democratize. But they are doing the exact opposite - talking democracy in regards to the dictators that don't support their interests, the ones that do are protected from democracy....as we are seeing right now in Bahrain, if anyone cares to take a look.

They very nearly had Sharia Law enacted in Ontario.

Total horseshit! I live in Ontario, and I am still able to recall this so called sharia law controversy. The real story was that some Muslim groups wanted non-binding sharia tribunals that were equivalent to those that were already had by Orthodox Jews and some Christians of some variety I can't recall. And the opposition came from two Muslim women's groups. And the McGuinty Government's answer was to abolish all religious tribunals....since it was likely that a court challenge would have ruled that you either allow all religious tribunals or none at all.

[Guest]

So, who has the military empire that considers itself to have the right to invade any country, anywhere around the world that doesn't meet their demands? I'll give you a hint: it's not a Muslim country.

I can't imagine. The only countries in the world that think they have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet their demands are definitely muslim countries. Not just the right, but the obligation, in fact. The only thing that stops them is that they don't have the means.

Thanks to the US, mainly.

[bleeding heart]

But they are doing the exact opposite - talking democracy in regards to the dictators that don't support their interests, the ones that do are protected from democracy....as we are seeing right now in Bahrain, if anyone cares to take a look.

Unfortunately, an old and ugly story.

When Canada hosted the "Depose The Popularly Elected Leader of Haiti" meeting in the early 1990's, joined with their fellow Democracy-lovers the USA and France, it was understood that some justification might be needed. After all, deposing an elected leader and replacing him with friendly killers is a fine old tradition, but some Westerners are too befuddled to quite get with the program. (Haitian opinions on their own democracy was, of course, less than irrelevant.) So Aristide's sins, both real and concocted, were floated about temporarily...and the disconnect--that those we put in his place were far worse by every measure, including even by comparison to our concocted reasons, seems to have passed notice altogether.

However, they needn't have worried. The "combative" press didn't much care, and nor did political oppositions generally.

Edited November 11, 2012 by bleeding heart

[WIP]

I can't imagine. The only countries in the world that think they have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet their demands are definitely muslim countries. Not just the right, but the obligation, in fact. The only thing that stops them is that they don't have the means.

Thanks to the US, mainly.

Let's put it this way: the claim of a Muslim threat to western civilization now that seemed to have got started with Francis Fukiyama's "Clash of Civilizations" bs, could be better explained by historians as a reactionary movement against western control of their resources....in particular the oil, and a negative reaction to western culture, mostly from TV and movies. If we and the U.S. in particular, weren't meddling in their lives, and so deeply involved in getting oil out of the Middle East, nobody would care what the Muslims were doing or not doing.

[WIP]

Unfortunately, an old and ugly story.

What I do know about Bahrain is that it is a Shiite majority nation dominated and being pilfered by a Sunni royal family. The U.S. appears to be taking sides...whether they have considered it or not....in getting involved in a sectarian conflict that could ignite all over the Middle East; since there are significant and oppressed Shitte minorities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and the Gulf States. And a war with Iran..the only significant Shia dominated nation seems to play into that larger theme. At least according to the Wikileaks cables, Saudi Arabia has been quietly behind the scenes trying to instigate an American/Israeli attack on Iran. It's easy to see a lot of ways to go wrong in this latest geopolitical chess game.

[GostHacked]

I can't imagine. The only countries in the world that think they have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet their demands are definitely muslim countries. Not just the right, but the obligation, in fact. The only thing that stops them is that they don't have the means.

Thanks to the US, mainly.

Have we forgot the war on terror already?

[Guest]

Have we forgot the war on terror already?

No, but then I haven't forgotton the Wizard of Oz, either. Equally relevant.

[Guest]

Let's put it this way: the claim of a Muslim threat to western civilization now that seemed to have got started with Francis Fukiyama's "Clash of Civilizations" bs, could be better explained by historians as a reactionary movement against western control of their resources....in particular the oil, and a negative reaction to western culture, mostly from TV and movies. If we and the U.S. in particular, weren't meddling in their lives, and so deeply involved in getting oil out of the Middle East, nobody would care what the Muslims were doing or not doing.

The Muslim threat to all civilizations that are not Muslim started with the Koran. I'm sure Mr Fukiyama won't be hurt.

[GostHacked]

No, but then I haven't forgotton the Wizard of Oz, either. Equally relevant.

Regime change in Iraq, done.

Regime change in Afghanistan, done.

Regime change in Egypt, done.

Regime change in Tunisia, done.

Regime change in Libya, done.

Just to name a few, then we have the next part of the list.

Regime change in Iran (soon)

Regime change in Syria, (soon)

Regime change in Saudi Arabia (hahahahah don't count on it)

[Guest]

Regime change in Iraq, done.

Regime change in Afghanistan, done.

Regime change in Egypt, done.

Regime change in Tunisia, done.

Regime change in Libya, done.

Just to name a few, then we have the next part of the list.

Regime change in Iran (soon)

Regime change in Syria, (soon)

Regime change in Saudi Arabia (hahahahah don't count on it)

Again, it's all very wonderful, but I think you're arguing with the wrong poster.

[GostHacked]

Again, it's all very wonderful, but I think you're arguing with the wrong poster.

No I got the right poster. You did say this ...

I can't imagine. The only countries in the world that think they have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet their demands are definitely muslim countries. Not just the right, but the obligation, in fact. The only thing that stops them is that they don't have the means.

Thanks to the US, mainly.

[Guest]

No I got the right poster. You did say this ...

Yes, but your posts don't address any of that. That's why I was confused.

[GostHacked]

Yes, but your posts don't address any of that. That's why I was confused.

That is a problem with having such a narrow worldview blaming Muslims for all the turmoil on the planet. My posts ran counter to your argument about Muslims causing all the problems through change in other countries while ignoring (perhaps on purpose for your argument?) the war on terror and I will point out specifically regime change in Iraq as part of the USA's long standing foreign policy on Iraq. I guess there are others that still need it all spelled out for them.

Not to mention that from all I have seen in the past year it was the likes of NATO and several intelligence agencies like MI5, MI6, CIA, possibly CSIS directly contributed to the fast rise of the Arab Spring, through funding/supplying the rebels in each country to bring down the regimes. Funny how on that front, NATO and Al-Queda are on the same side. .... Interesting.

Edited November 11, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest]

That is a problem with having such a narrow worldview blaming Muslims for all the turmoil on the planet. My posts ran counter to your argument about Muslims causing all the problems through change in other countries while ignoring (perhaps on purpose for your argument?) the war on terror and I will point out specifically regime change in Iraq as part of the USA's long standing foreign policy on Iraq. I guess there are others that still need it all spelled out for them.

I didn't make that argument.

Again, that's why I was confused.

[GostHacked]

I didn't make that argument.

Again, that's why I was confused.

The reason you are confused, is because you are wrong in your line of thinking. Again let's look at this below.

I can't imagine. The only countries in the world that think they have the right to invade any country that doesn't meet their demands are definitely muslim countries. Not just the right, but the obligation, in fact. The only thing that stops them is that they don't have the means.

Thanks to the US, mainly.

While we have entities like the USA who DO have the means and the will and the 'moral' capacity to do something about it. The USA helped create their own problem by actually facilitating violence from Muslim extremists.

Edited November 11, 2012 by GostHacked

[Rue]

Point of order....Canada already has silly hate speech laws....the U.S. doesn't. You can find out more at a local HRC hearing.

Not true. There are limitations to hate speech in the US. You can not incite violence or hatred with words in the US. In fact the Canadian Charter of Rights is very similiar to the US constitution on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly.

In fact there are numerous decisions in the US similiar to Canadian ones as to controlling speech that goes too far and Ernst Zundel was expelled from the US to Germany precisely because of it.

The difference is the US does not have human rights commissions and in particular the Ontario Human Rights Commission that has made some bizarre decisions about matters concerning discriminatory practice not be to mixed up with hate laws.

As you may also be aware there are international laws both the US and Canad subscribe to concerning the promulgation of hatred.

Where we have a real difference is in practical enforcement. The US has a stronger tradition of protecting freedom of speech then Canada.

It reflects a cultural difference more than a legal one. Americans are much more aggressive when it comes to civil liberties than Canadians.

Now for example we had a famous case in Skokie, Illinois where Nazis were allowed to march in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood but interestingly the police were close by in full force and there were some prominent Jewish lawyers in the Civil LIberties Union who defended the rights of Nazis to march. But to say they would have been allowed to state openly people should attack Jews is not true. The police and FBI who are in charge of

civil rights enforcement were there watching.

Its interesting because some in the US claim the US is not pro civil liberties enough.

In Canada just recently, outside Queen's Park, the provincial parliament of Ontario, the government allowed a rally for Al Quds day which commemorates the day Israel became a nation from an anti Israel Arab perspective and numerous individuals made openly anti semitic speeches and called for violence against Israel and Jews but the police were told to simply stand by and not do anything unless there was physical violence.

You would be interested to know at the yearly gay pride parade, there is but one political float, run by a group of gay Muslims who chant for Israel to be dismantled.

Enforcing freedom of speech in Canada is complex. Its subjective, arbitrary and subject to a lot of cultural and political values of the day.

It has been popular for years to attack Jews as long as you pretext it as being connected with a discussion on Israel on most university campuses in Canada. However if the same is done in reverse with Islam or other ethnic or religious groups the gatherings have been shut down.

Its a very subjective thing. Our Charter is supposed to be applied no differently than yours when it comes to freedom of speech or inciting crimes.

Your country also will not permit using words to incite violence or crime. It has shown it will step in at rallies where speakers have done such a thing.

I in fact thing the FBI for the most part have done a very good job , In our country we have different police forces in charge of it therefore they reflect the political perspectives of their provincial leaders and individual police chiefs. Ironically while criminal law is exclusively federal in Canada and for the most part state jurisdiction in the US, because the US federal government has jurisdiction on civil rights issues that supercedes local police, they have had a more effective enforcement history than in Canada where police enforcement is subject to provincial and municipal levels of intervention as well.

The Metro Toronto Police force has well trained officers in dealing with hate crimes reflecting the fact this city has over 120 ethnic groups with 80 different languages spoken, the most diversified city in the world. However in more rural areas it is felt the RCMP which acts as provincial police in provinces who can not afford their own provincial police have not done a good job. Some of our small city and town police forces reflect the values of their community which are very klanish. There are some towns in Ontario where the small town or city police do not hide their bias against new Canadians or aboriginal peoples. They reflect more of an us against them mentality then a specific hatred of any particular culture.

You can get away with a lot of hate speech in small towns. There is no one there to challenge it.

I am one of those people who prefers it out in the open to deal with head on then going underground because of censorship. I think once it goes underground its more dangerous. I have no problem with a bigot right in my face. Its the ones that smile and act all polite I have issues with.

I also don't mind someone who hates everyone equally. Those kind of people I can deal with. Its the smarmy white liberal guilt ridden ones that try act all righteous that make me sick. There is no shortage on this forum who pretend to be almighty righteous and liberal until someone with some colour in their skin moves next door or someone disagrees with them then they are as intolerant as all the people they lash out at as being bigots.

I think all in all the police should not have to be politcal police and don't want to be but are forced to at times.