Analysis and Debunking of Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

reply to post by Foppezao


You wouldn't find any muslim names in Enlightenment literature because those books are written by Christians. What sort of enlightenment are you talking about anyway? Scientific Bias enlightenment???? I mean the Vatican acknowledged the possibility of life on other planets only recently and also made it public that the Earth is not infact the center of the universe only recently (past 100 years). Although we've known this since Ancient times, so what type of enlightenment are you speaking of? Could it also be the fact that Christianity is responsible for more MURDERS then any other religion in history?? Maybe thats the enlightenment you speak of. What a croc.

Well it was a beautiful speech all right. Because that is what obama does, make beautiful speeches. He is the magician getting you to focus on his hand while the real magic is done in plain sight. You want to make a statement?
Pull every troop from every muslim and otherwise foreign land. Leave these people alone. It is not our business to police the world. Their fight is not our fight. Their business is not our business. They don't want us there and we have no right to be there any more than if they were to send troops to occupy the U.S. This speech is about "We are in control and I'm telling you how it is. I just hope you buy it long enough so we can ram our agenda further down your throats." We have a right to defend our shores. We do that magnificently from foreign attack. Outside of that will be classified as a tyrannical empire. And a crumbling one at that.

reply to post by NoJoker13

reply to post by pitchdragon


Thank you pitchdragon the religious bias and pure ignorance when dealing with this topic is utterly insane. I don't think we're far from a time when all religion will be seen as radical. Again thank christianity for that.

posted too soon, sorry. will make adjustment soon

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Fremd]

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Foppezao

 

You wouldn't find any muslim names in Enlightenment literature because those books are written by Christians. What sort of enlightenment are you talking about anyway? Scientific Bias enlightenment???? I mean the Vatican acknowledged the possibility of life on other planets only recently and also made it public that the Earth is not infact the center of the universe only recently (past 100 years). Although we've known this since Ancient times, so what type of enlightenment are you speaking of? Could it also be the fact that Christianity is responsible for more MURDERS then any other religion in history?? Maybe thats the enlightenment you speak of. What a croc.

Clearly you have no clue of what Enlightment is or red my post to understand what i ment..This Enlightment was precisely against the Dogma's of the Christian world...
Maybe you should begin by reading some more German, or French literature instead of the Anglo-American discourse your brain is filled with...Roger Chartier, Emmanuel Kant, René Descartes,Rousseau, Voltaire and Spinoza, Erasmus those who carried the Enlightment movement...

some of them seen as heretics by the Christian church

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Foppezao]

reply to post by Foppezao


O I did read your post heres a little definition for you: The Age of Enlightenment, or simply The Enlightenment, is a term used to describe a time in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source and legitimacy for authority.[1]

Developing more or less simultaneously in Germany, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, and Portugal the movement spread through much of Europe, including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia and Scandinavia as well as in America. It could be argued that the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791, were motivated by "Enlightenment" principles.




And what is one principle of all of those works????? ONE NATION UNDER GOD!!!!!!!!!!! This also made us slaves to a system, Voltaire and many others tryed to make a seperation of church and state yes but all the enlightenment period did was stregthen the already powerful christians. Regardless of there goal, it didn't work out that way. So pretty much all of those names you mentioned succeeded in doing exactly what they didn't want, by making a stronger authoritarian presence.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by NoJoker13]

reply to post by finemanm

He states unequically that he is a Christian, but states mater of factly that his father's falimy was Muslim and that he spent several years in Indonesia. I point this out because if this was brought up durring the election, you would be called a racist

1.) Since when does your religion decide your race?

2.) Just because one person calls you something that makes no sense, doesn't mean that is the thought process of an Obama supporter. You are gauging the entire population of people who voted for Obama off of a few losers who have nothing better to do than instigate a fight. That's pretty weak, could you think of nothing better?

Firstly, this is purely pandering to the audience. Secondly, he is flatly wrong in his statement.

Algebra: Invented in the Middle-East? Yes, but not buy Muslims.

First off, wikipedia was the only source i could find that supports your claim (many others say it was an arabic origin) secondly, you're putting your eggs in one basket with wikipedia. Thats the same place that says Stephen Colbert used to be a drummer in a rock band....

You may very well be right, and i may be wrong. But just so you know, wikipedia is to be trusted as much as a baby sitter Gacy.

The rest of your stuff about inventions ill just take your word for. Again, i really don't care who invented what. Of course he's there to pander, he's a politician...

I don't really disagree with him, but it is really unprecidented how much time this president spends critizing the previous president. Bush did not criticize Clinton, and Clinton did not criticize the elder Bush.

Clinton and Elder Bush did not hand over the mess that Bush Jr. did to Obama. This country was in a worse predicament that anyone alive can remember. Invasion of a country that did nothing to us.
Hell, even Cheney just recently admitted there was NO CONNECTION between Iraq and 9/11. So why invade so soon? Because they were harboring terrorists? But they were not THE terrorists who commited the crime!

In fact, i believe Obama does a very good job constraining himself. If i were him, i'd be on Bush's mistakes likes flies on feces to ensure nobody who thinks like him ever got elected into office again.

Obama talks about putting the past behind us, but he loves to blame today's problems on the past administration.

Someone has to take responsibility for it. Would you rather Obama say "these problems are my fault" ?

Seriously. Your attempts to lie to everyone and say "this is not an attempt, just an analysis" are seriously flawed.

Blantent Lie!

Proof that it's a lie? Or are you just pandering?

No US president has used such strong language with the issue of settlements. This is a total paradyme shift.

So first Obama is too weak, not he's too tough? Look. Israel and Palestine have been fighting for how long? I say you let them to it. I say you let them figure it out. If they blow each other up? Great! Who gives a damn? Not me. But thats why i'm not president...But im confused about your claim to an unbiased approach, and how you yourself had a paradyme shift of your own, into inventing facts of your own in order to disprove something that doesn't really matter?

Again, paridyme shift. This is a veiled threat at Israel's uncomfirmed Nuclear arsenal, and a tacit approval of Iran's Nuclear program. This is pure insanity. While his speech states that Nuclear weapons in the Mid-East are a bad thing, he is legitimizing everything Iran has done up to now.

Do you realize that there is a fundamental difference between manufactured nuclear energy and manufactured nuclear weapons?

Since you obviously don't - read up:

Saying Iran has a right to nuclear energy given they comply with regulations and rules is one thing.

It's not saying they have a right to nuclear weapons. Again, you're inventing your own facts so you can win your own fabricated argument...

This is the complete abandonment of 50-60 years of US foreign policy. This is an acceptance of Theocracies and Dictatorships. This is deeming to democracy, the US solders who really believed that they were bring democracy to Iraq, and even to the men who gave their lives at Normandy who were fighting totalitarianism.

So you're saying that it is the responsibility to invade any country that doesn't practice democracy, over throw their government, and reform them as we see fit?

You should run for the GOP nomination. You'd fit right in...

womens rights.....

So, he should spend another 50 hours talking about every single thing that should encompass womens rights? I thought he generalized it? You're just unwilling to say "that was actually a really good attempt, better than anyone before him" because you think if you SAY you're doing an unbiased analysis, that it actually makes it true.

But inventing facts, distorting truth, and spinning reality is not unbiased. It's main stream media. And in your case, it's more Fox news.

Congratulations on your stars and flags. It says something for people on the right. It really does.

Just like this study that once again proves conservatives haven't a clue what is going on.

Neither do liberals. Which is why i don't associate myself with either.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Foppezao

 

Regradless of there goal, it didn't work out that way.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by NoJoker13]

Well i think it did... the seperation between Church and state still the principle of most western nations..As well as the counsiousness in those people and stateleaders..
btw did Obama adressed that as well, the seperation between church and state?

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Foppezao]

reply to post by Foppezao


Ya and my president didn't have to swear on a BIBLE and have a prayer when he was inaugurated either did he????? Where's the seperation? There isn't any.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Foppezao

 

Ya and my president didn't have to swear on a BIBLE and have a prayer when he was inaugurated either did he????? Where's the seperation? There isn't any.

well we don't have those rituals over here[not in court, parliament or any public institute], in fact we have a word called ontkerkelijking..it doesn't really have a tranlation but it means something like the opposite of conversion, like becoming atheist, a process which is much stronger in parts of Europe [Northern part] then in the South or the USA.

reply to post by Foppezao


I'd like for you to read this article: www.wwrn.org...

Heres a quote from it: The Dutch parliament rejected a call to scrap a 1930s blasphemy law on Tuesday after the murder of a filmmaker critical of Islam sparked a heated debate about freedom of speech.

Heres also another fact about your country: Historically the Netherlands is characterized by multitude of religions. The Netherlands is and has historically been a predominantly Christian country. Although religious diversity remains to the present day, there is a major decline of religious adherence.

So in short your country is battling with the same oppression as everyone else. My constitution states religious freedom too, but you'd probably agree America has become quite biased toward many religions.

Also America has had a major decline in religious adherence as well but not the people in positions of power, sadly thats all that matters.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by NoJoker13]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by NoJoker13]

Information is not neutral. Information has a bias, a perspective, a point of view, a meaning, a purpose.

History is NOT neutral. Us, westerners, we are taught history from a western point of view with a large bias. Hence we don't hear about Averroes, Avicenna, Caliphate of Cordoba, the list goes on.
As an example, we wouldn't know about Aristotle if Averroes had not translated his work from Greek into Arab. The Averroes transcripts were translated again into Latin and Aristotle was then rediscovered in Europe.
Opinions differ amongst historians but it is a very very common view that European Renaissance was launch by the diffusion of the works of Islamic philosophers, legalists, doctors, architects, scientists, etc... Islamic thinkers had studied the work of the Greeks who had studied other civilisations knowledge, etc...
All our knowledge come from humans picking up on someone's else work and going on.

Except for my personal education in history, it is of no interest to me the origin or ethnic group of who came up first with what. I praise the bright and deep minds of past and present. They are human beings from my race. Usually, they simply come from the area with the most ressources and wealth of their times. It is as simple as that.
Intelligence is not related to skin color. It is related to education. Education comes with ressources and wealth.

We create barriers, boundaries, groups, conflicts and spot differences between us despite the overwhelming evidence we are all of the same kind.

When Obama refers to Islamic Enlightment that preceded European Renaissance, he is only expressing a common view and shows some education on the subject (or the education of the ones who write his speeches).

Denial and division is a choice.

reply to post by Manouche

EXACTLY.... The Islamic golden age was far earlier and just as bright as the European Renaissance and paved the way for both the high middle ages and the Renaissance. Indeed it only came to an end as a result of the Mongol invasions.

Still even after that horror... the Islamic world was as I said the most technologically advanced until well into the 17th century when the west began to overtake it.

Consider this... with this one speech Obama has checked Osama Bin Laden and his politics of terror... He will have no choice but to address it... while its no checkmate, Obama's speech puts the extremists on the defensive... and if Obama makes a concerted effort to live up to it... it may very well checkmate.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Manouche

 

EXACTLY.... The Islamic golden age was far earlier and just as bright as the European Renaissance and paved the way for both the high middle ages and the Renaissance. Indeed it only came to an end as a result of the Mongol invasions.

Still even after that horror... the Islamic world was as I said the most technologically advanced until well into the 17th century when the west began to overtake it.

Actually the stagnation and decline of the Islamic golden age and especially its philosophy came with philosophers such as Al-Ghazali and his work of the "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" ['Tahafut al falasifa']where he stated that everything is created by the hand and will of god, intellect and reason should only be used for implementing divine laws such as Sharia, Quran and the Hadith, and that people should not search and research answers in nature, there's no causality etc.... .This work was very influential in that time..

So again i was not talking about exact science which they produced but the philosophy where the human individual is the centre of interest[humanism] and the reason of men..This has not prevailed in the Islamic world just look around.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by Foppezao]

I have never really understood the point of posts like the OP. I mean, ok he doesnt agree with the speech, thats very clear. But look at it in a bigger context, if Obama is trying to come to some type of peace, doesnt that ultimately mean that less of our soldiers will be sent over there? Also meaning that less of our neighbors, family, and friends will die in the middle-east? that should be all that anyone cares about.

About the Bush comment, how Obama keeps reffering to Bush's mistakes (whether you believe they are mistakes or not). Does anyone stop to think that he always talks about them because people blame Obama for things that were already set in place BEFORE he was president?? (i cant tell you how many times i've heard him blamed for the car industry crises, I live in detroit, and I can say without a doubt, the ball was rolling extremely fast before Obama got into office, so now that hes trying to fix it, he catches the blame)

Here are some views from the streets of Israel on the Obama peace speech.

[edit on 023030p://pm3027 by masonwatcher]

I am starting this response to state that I am glad to see that my thread has inspired many of you to think critically and discuss this new chapter in American foreign policy. I appreciate your responses even if I don't agree with you.

However, I don't appreciate responses that are wholy without thought and simply efforts to insult me for engaging in this exercise.

Originally posted by ReelView
Not an Obama fan, but sorry, the fabrication of Israel has nothing to do with true followers of Judaism. It is opposed by them to this day. It is the Zionists who persecuted the "Jews" even under "Nazi" Germany. Millions of "Jews" where not killed in WWII. Much of the expulsion of Jews is more likely the work of Zionists who are infiltrators of Judaism and fabricators of the term "Jew".

Please keep your anti-semitism to your self, nuf said.

Originally posted by Manouche
Oh yes ! Obama is an anti-Semite. That is why he has David Axelrod as top advisor and campaign strategist and Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff to name only a couple of Jewish people around him

I'm not sure if you are responding to me, but I never said Obama is an anti-semite. I disagree with his policies (foreign and domestic), not just those that deal with Israel. This speech happened to cover that aspect of his foreign policy. Nothing more and nothing less.

reply to post by Majorion


The point of my statements reffering to algebra and other "inventions" was to point out that he is essentially making a campaign speech to people that don't have a vote in US governmental affairs. He say what is politically convenient depending on who he is talking to. Why is he even making a speech to the Muslim world? Is he the prostelatizer in chief? Is he the Holy See? The US President should deal with foreign governments, not religions.

Originally posted by Kombatt98
reply to post by finemanm

 

this is coming from a hindu agnostic ....

another stupid christian zionist thread based on bashing Islam . level of american stupidity , people can write such BS for trying to cover up for the genocide that USA has waged in ME , its disgusting

despite the fact that the satanist-jewish zionist NWO is screwing Christians and muslims and trying to inflame t hem against each other , most people are still in 'lalala' land , believed propaganda like a sheeple

looking at the kind of things americans preach , the russians use the right term for americans : 'yankistani goyim '

, when the jews and their NWO bring a communist revolution to USA , only then will the Americans awaken to see their real enemy

If you lack the intellectual capacity to discuss the speech without throwing around insults and anti-semitic propaganda, please keep your non-sense to yourself.

reply to post by postmeme


I notice a lot of you are focusing on the issue that I brought up that Obama made up facts with respect to what accomplishments Muslims have acheived and gave to this world. I am not saying that nothing good came out if the Middle-East. My point was that he is pandering, and pandering by saying things that are simply untrue. Why does the US president have to grovel before a group of foreigners? Why does he need to appoligize for us?

I'm many of you will not agree, but the United States is not an evil terrible country. People from all over the world want to come here and be called Americans. There is a reason for that, the US is really the land of oppurtunity and freedom. When this government does things in foreign affairs for the benefit of American citizens and business, it is usually to the detriment of foreign nations. Our President should have to appoligize for prior administrations putting American interest above those of other nations.

reply to post by Fremd

1.) Since when does your religion decide your race?

If you prefer, I can say that during the election if you were to question Obama's Muslim heritage and background, you would be called a bigot. I used the term racist as a catch-all that describes people that discriminate solely on the basis of race, color, national origin or religion.

My issue with Mr. Obama's background is that I don't believe that a person who follows, or has been raised with a Muslim world view is compatible with what I believe is an American world view of liberties, freedoms, democracy, capitalism, etc.... You may not think that the American way if thinking is right, thats fine too, but as a voter, I don't want a president that is willing to abandon all the thing that I feel are right about this country. That is why his background was important during the election, and I feel that it was intentionally obscurred so that the voters didn't have a complete picture of the man they put in office.

In fact, i believe Obama does a very good job constraining himself. If i were him, i'd be on Bush's mistakes likes flies on feces to ensure nobody who thinks like him ever got elected into office again.

As a private citizen, it is our right, and our responsibility to criticize the government. Even as a politician, our elected officials should criticize each other; however, the conduct of a sitting president is different. Ordinarily, presidents don't criticize each other because the office of the President isn't just a person, it is an institution. Remember when Jimmy Carter called Bush the worst President? Even Bill Clinton acknowledged that Carter over stepped his bounds. You may agree with Carter's assessment, but it is just not done. Part of what makes this country prosperous is the stability and continuity of government. When a president spends so much time breaking with the past, it is disruptive on many levels.

Proof that it's a lie? Or are you just pandering?

I think you are questioning the fact that the SOFA was negotiated by the Bush Administration, and Obama can do NOTHING except carry it out as it was agreed too by the US and Iraqi governments.

I ran out of space above.

What is a SOFA?

Status-of-forces agreements are not basing or access agreements. Rather, they define the legal status of U.S. personnel and property in the territory of another nation. The purpose of such an agreement is to set forth rights and responsibilities between the United States and the host government on such matters as criminal and civil jurisdiction, the wearing of the uniform, the carrying of arms, tax and customs relief, entry and exit of personnel and property, and resolving damage claims.

www.globalsecurity.org...

From NY Times:

On Nov. 27, 2008, the Iraqi Parliament ratified a Status of Forces agreement with the United States that sets a course for an end to the United States’ role in the war and marks the beginning of a new relationship between the countries. The pact calls for American troops to pull out of most Iraqi cities by the summer of 2009 and sets the end of 2011 as the date by which the last American troops must leave the country.

**snip**

For most of his time in office, Mr. Maliki had taken a decidedly deferential position with President Bush. But in the spring of 2008, Mr. Maliki gained the upper hand in an ongoing struggle for Shiite loyalty when Iraqi troops backed by American forces took control of areas of Basra and Baghdad held by the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric. Soon afterward, Mr. Maliki broke with Mr. Bush and signaled his support for a timeline for the withdrawal of American combat troops. Bush administration officials resisted, and then tried to couch the concession as "aspirational.'' But as Mr. Maliki held fast, the agreement was concluded much as he had proposed.

For link, go back to the second post in this thread.

As you can see, it was the Evil Bush administration that negotiated the troop withdrawal time table with the government of Iraq before Obama was even elected. He likes to take credit for the good thing, but points the finger for bad things.

So, he should spend another 50 hours talking about every single thing that should encompass womens rights? I thought he generalized it? You're just unwilling to say "that was actually a really good attempt, better than anyone before him" because you think if you SAY you're doing an unbiased analysis, that it actually makes it true.

The issue of women's rights is an outstanding example of the differences between American/secular ideology and oppressive Islamic beleifs.

These are the things Obama said about women's rights:

I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal.

I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.

You see, its all about language and choice of words. He could have said the same thing by stating that women should have the right to choose how they dress, and shouldn't be persecuted for CHOOSING not to cover their hair. He could have said the women should be free to choose what occupation they want on not be forced to accept TRADITIONAL roles.

In America we don't prevent people from practicing their religion how they see fit. You want to cover your hair, go ahead, we don't judge. You don't want to, we wont stone you either.

Apparently, Obama would not subject his wife or children to the same "freedoms" he wishes to gauruntee for Muslim women.

From there it will be on to France, where Obama will participate in ceremonies marking the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy on Saturday.

France will be a family affair for the Obamas: the White House announced that 10-year-old Malia and 7-year-old Sasha will join their mother, first lady Michelle Obama, when she flies to Paris on Friday.

It will be the girls' first excursion abroad as daughters of an American president, and Paris was tres atwitter Thursday over what the First Family would do while in town.

www.nydailynews.com...

I am sure that the First Lady and First Children would have enjoyed seeing the Great Pyramids with their father, but can you imagine the First Lady being asked to wear a head scarf? That is what is required in a Muslim Nation.

Make your own decisions as why the First Family did not attend this ground breaking speech.

reply to post by masonwatcher


Thanks for showing us some drunk college age kids in Israel.

Lets take a look at the Arab response to the murder or 3,000 Americans on 9/11 just for a little balence.



masonwatcher, have a nice day and go ____ yourself.