Blogs and Stories
The Arab World Reacts
Nishanuddin Khan / AP Photo
Reaction to Obama's Cairo speech ranged from angry comparisons to Bush, praise for his balanced approach—and accusations that he's an apostate. The Daily Beast's Salameh Nematt translates today's headlines from across the Arab world.
President Obama’s address at Cairo university—interrupted by applause 18 times—was widely acclaimed in the Arab world as an historic speech. But in some quarters in the region, it was received with a large pinch of salt.
Some listeners believe it signaled a departure from previous U.S. administration policies; but others, who regard it a mere exercise in public relations, expressed doubts about whether Obama’s actions will ultimately match his rhetoric.
While Egypt’s government heaped praise on Obama’s “balanced approach” to the region’s problems, the Egyptian pro-democracy group known as Kefaya—which translates as “Enough”—said the speech’s content was almost a “carbon copy of Bush’s speeches, but with new, more politically correct, terminology.”
Compared to Bush, Obama “is much harder to decipher,” one editorial said. “He must’ve confused America’s enemies by giving ‘the Great Satan’ a much more attractive face.”
Abdul-Halim Qandil, the general coordinator of Kefaya, told Elaph.com, the leading Arab online newspaper, that Obama “used the Holy Koran to sell us old U.S. policies,” in reference to the president quoting the Muslim holy book to drive home his point.
“Message Received” was the headline for Asharq Al Awsat, the leading pan-Arab newspaper, but the paper argued that “it remains to be seen how [Obama] will translate his positions on ending Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories and halting Iran’s nuclear program into policies and actions.”
“He spoke as though he was the master of the world, but he did say all the right things we wanted to hear,” the paper added.
But the lead editorial in the pan-Arab Al Hayat newspaper had a different take, saying the new U.S. president has succeeded in confusing many of those opposed to U.S. policies in the region: “It was easier to deal with Bush… who echoed Osama bin Laden when he divided the world between good and evil. But this new visitor is much harder to decipher. He must’ve confused America’s enemies by giving ‘the Great Satan’ a much more attractive face.”
Al Jazeera, the Arab world’s leading satellite-TV channel, celebrated the speech as “an attempt at forging a new relationship between Washington and the Muslim world.” It took notice of his reference to Iraq as being a war of choice and not necessity, and to the United States’ overthrow of the popular government in Iran in 1953 as a mistake, but also noted that the president stopped short of offering a straightforward apology.
Iraqi blogger Nibras Kazimi, of Talisman Gate, cast doubt on whether Obama’s speech will give America any positive advantage against its worst enemies, such as al Qaeda. He quoted from a speech released by the terrorist organization’s leader in Iraq, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, on the eve of Obama’s address in Cairo, which declared that Obama, who was born to a Muslim father, was an apostate for converting to Christianity:
“It is gladdening that the commander of the [Christian] forces in their war on the Muslims today is a black slave [who has] apostatized from Islam. Thanks be to Allah they don’t have a man [among] them to put forward, so they borrow a submissive slave who [is an] apostate from his religion to incur the anger of God and his spite and the quickness of his punishment. So rejoice in the era of the black [man] of Washington.”
A recent Gallup poll shows that approval of U.S. leadership is up in some Arab countries since Obama took office; in Egypt, it has jumped by 19 percent. This improvement appears to reflect a positive reception of Obama’ efforts to engage the Muslim world, which started with his inaugural address and the choice of Al-Arabiya TV for his first interview. However, approval ratings for U.S. policies remain low across Arab countries, hovering around a median of 25 percent, and many Arabs polled remain undecided about their opinion of Obama.
Xtra Insight: View our gallery of Obama's trip
Xtra Insight: Read and watch Obama's speech
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Reza Aslan: Why Cairo Was Wrong for Obama's Speech
Xtra Insight: The Daily Beast's Max Blumenthal interviews author David Grossman, an Israeli who shares Obama's vision
Salameh Nematt is the international editor of The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Qaddafi Struts In
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
The Pharaoh Comes to Washington
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
Iran's Nervous Neighbors
Salameh Nematt is an international writer for The Daily Beast. He is the former Washington bureau chief for the international Arab daily Al Hayat, where he reported on US foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the US drive for democratization in the broader Middle East. He has also written extensively on regional and global energy issues and their political implications.
Talk is nice.
But the last good action America took in the Middle East was when Eisenhower stopped the French, British and Israelis from faking a war so they could steal the Suez Canal.
Some people today say the the good western governments, like our closest allies England and Israel, would never fake a war for material goods (maybe for democracy, but never for cash money).
Oh we would , in our past probably for less reasons then that.
When the president gave his speech to his crowd of supporters yesterday lots of misinformation came as usual from his lips. This quotation shows his first lie."Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." So how can we believe the rest of the story?
I mean... Have you looked at the numbers? I haven't, just wondering if you have facts. And way to take one point he tried making as a way to bridge our two cultures and throw away the entire rest of the speech. Good thing he wasn't talking to you.
America only has about 2- 3 million muslims as of 2001.
He said no such thing in his speech. You are simply making shit up.
Not in the speech, no. He said it in Washington before he left, in an interview on Canal Plus, as reported by the New York Times; http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/obama-signals-themes-of-midea st-speech/?hp
It seems that Obama is the one making shit up.
that is an exact quote from his speech. 'funny' how the devotees just call anything they don't agree with a lie.
We don't know for sure.. I've seen numbers between 2 to 8 million. But we do not conduct our numbers (usually) on religion.
Isn't it funny how you Obama haters sound just like the al'queda guy in Iraq. The criticism from al'queda sounds just like Hannity and Rush. Like minds think alike.
well, i'm by no means an "O-bot" but many estimates of the number of American Muslims would seem to indicate the US has more than the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, Bahrain, Lebanon, Kuwait, Brunei, Oman, etc.
of course, demographics are tricky. but if he did say that, it's not *necessarily* untrue.
The Wizard of Obama
Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Ignore the history of the United States selling arms to Iran and Iraq over the last several decades.
Ignore the fact that the United States kidnaps, tortures, and imprisons people indefinitely without a trial.
Ignore the history of the United States giving Israel weapons/financial aid and "legal cover" at the United Nations over the last several decades.
Ignore that Obama chose Egypt to give an address to Muslims... giving legitimacy to an abusive and dictatorial government that kidnaps, tortures, and imprisons people indefinitely without a trial.
Ignore the fact that as Obama is speaking the United States is expanding its' illegal war into Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Why?
Because Obama says so.
Dude, We all recognize your ability to cut and paste. Have an original thought eh?
How's this....
The problem with Obama choosing a 6th Catholic for the 9 member Supreme Court should be obvious to anyone who supports affirmative action and quotas.
You can't choose your age, race, gender, or sexual orientation but you can choose what religion you are.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that systematically abused and raped thousands of children in Ireland.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that actively campaigns to take away other people's rights.
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization whose leader said (AIDS) "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that consistently interferes with governments around the world, especially in the United States by telling it's followers "that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion." (in effect telling their followers who to vote for).
These justices made a conscious decision to belong to an organization that is headed by a former member of the Luftwaffe AA battery of the Hitler Youth Corps.
Granted one member of a church is not responsible for the actions of the other members but what they are responsible for is giving legitimacy and money to an organization that not only committed the above actions but then covered them up (in some cases for decades).
It is this lack of responsibility and the acceptance of the illegal actions of their own church that makes this such a troubling issue.
And it speaks volumes to what these justices view the role of the church to be and how much they are willing to over look criminal actions in the quest for their own personal jesus.
I can't seem to reply to your second post about Catholics but I can tell you first hand that my priest has never told me who to vote for and that I even spoke to him about the most recent election b/c I did not feel that I could vote for someone I disagreed with on so many issues just b/c of abortion and he told me that there was no Catholic candidates in the election that both had good and bad points. He never ONCE made me in anyway feel that voting for Obama was wrong even in a non straightfoward way. I do agree with you on the communion thing...I feel (and there are PLENTY of Catholic politicians who do believe in abortion rights as well) that the law is not the place to 'combat' abortion-it starts in the home, in the community and in the parish and finally and foremost it is between God and that woman and none of us can stand in her shoes at that time (which of COURSE is what Obama meant when he said it was above his pay grade..). I say 'combat' b/c no one loves abortion and I am sure everyone would like for there to be less need for it. Which is what Obama pushes and is why I back his ideas on it.
As for Catholics in the Supreme Court, well heck, we have only ever had 1 as the President of the US so I don't see that big of a problem with the trade off. Again, look at Dennis Kucinich, he is one of the most liberal politicians I've run across and he is Catholic. There are more like him.
As for the condom thing, well it's just like what I said about 'combatting' abortion. Simply 'using a condom' does not make the problem go away and if people think that they can use condems and have sex with whoever whenever and as much as they want, well that really isn't going to solve the problem-this is what I think the Pope meant. Neither will money. Poeple need to respect their bodies and respect their use of them more and that is what the Pope meant I believe.
Yes, the Catholic church has done many things wrong, but I do not believe it is the Evil organization you are portraying it as.
The fact is that Obama is not expanding the war in Afghanistan. It was already in progress when Bush took his eye off the ball and invaded Iraq because he wanted Saddam. The Afghanistan war was begun to go after Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda - who were and are responsible for terrorist acts around the world and who were responsible for 9/11
Do Muslims ever follow the commandment Love thy neighbor?
I don't think many Muslims read the Bible?
haha, that was funny. KSCR14 have you ever heard the somewhat similar Islamic proverb, Kill one man and kill all mankind, save one man and save all mankind? (I think there are other translations too but that is the jist). I think it is sad that so many people in this country think muslim=terrorist.
Do Christians?
Just like you all, we are not all generalized stereotypes and hold VERY different opinions on issues based on our backgrounds, politics, and perception.
Bush read the bible and look what it got us.....
Frankly I dont give a F&^K what the "Christians" think, they have brought enough havoc to the world as it is, Bush ( Born again ) and his followers are just as whacky as the Mudlim "Base", make no mistake, if many of the right wing base was as bad off as most Muslims, they to would be blowing themselves up too....
You have 18th and 19th Century Christianity in Great Britian and New England to thank for the end of legal slavery, worldwide. Do you give a f&^k about that?
Martin Luther King based his messages during the civil rights movement on his Christianity. Do you give a f&^k about that?
Bush was a general incompetent. I suspect this applies to his understanding of Christianity as well. He's not alone.
Political leaders are notorious for using whatever dominant religion exists in their domain for their own ends. This goes back to the dawn of history and continues today.
" if many of the right wing base was as bad off as most Muslims,
they to would be blowing themselves up too.... "
Many people around the world have it " bad off " and they're not
blowing themselves up.
Because they're not dumb enough to believe they'll
be rewarded with 71 virgins.
Insane.
72
Something like it. Muslims, or at least the old time ones, believed that all Muslims were part of one community. All Muslims. One Community. Regardless of race, gender, ethnic background, tribes, etc. And that wealth was no differentiator of status.
Women had certain rights over men, and vice versa. Widows and orphans were to be provided for. And that a certain amount of money should be given to charity. Slavery was accepted, but slaves were to be treated like family members and eat the same food as their master. And there was no compulsion in religion. Jews and Christians weren't forced to convert, though they had to pay some sort of tax.
All this was very attractive to a lot of people. Including the lower classes that lived on lands the Muslim World Empire took in conquest. Quite often the taxes they had to pay as Christian or Jews was less than the taxes they had to pay their nominally Christian ruler. This is one of the reasons that the Muslim World Empire spread so quickly after Mohammed died. Islam was intended to be a template or constitution for the whole community, and that community should spread over the world.
In those days and continuing today Muslim believe that non-believers are destined for hell, a literal hell, much like the literal hell that fundamentalist Christians, some evangelical Christians, and some Christians-in-Name-Only believe that all non-believers are destined for. Thus the drive to get people to convert.
Setting aside his identity as Messenger of God, which you can believe or dismiss as you chose, Mohammed was very much a social reformer, wanting to fix what he saw as the serious social ills and inequities of his culture, nation, whatever you want to call it.
Of course, much like the teachings of Jesus - requirements actually - they have been distorted and misapplied by an assortment of thieves, murders and liars ever since. Some of these are currently running most of the Muslim countries in the Middle East. Many joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
If you're asking about the Islamic He-Man Infidel Haters Club otherwise known as the Wahhabi, the truth is that they are not even fundamentalist Muslims. They are selective fundamentalists, choosing what part of Islam to adhere to and which to ignore. Not an uncommon thing here in America with certain groups.
Thank you for the history. Are you a teacher? - you write in a good orderly manner
Carole65
Not a teacher, but I do spend a lot of time translating my boss' emails into English for the other managers that report to him. He's from Boston.
Do Christians? Guessed you missed the Pew research: Evangelical Christians were most likely to approve of torture (62%), followed by Catholics (51%), then by Protestants (46%). Nonbelievers were least likely to approve (40%).
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156
I think that the 62% of Evangelicals are selective about their dogma, too. Of course, 38% of Evangelicals disapprove of torture, if I go by your numbers.
"Accusations that he is an apostate?" I think that should be very clear. He claims to be a Christian (even though he still can't find a church in a city full of them). If he has foresaken Islam for Christianity, how can he be anything but an apostate? I think he will find Muslums a bit less willing to believe his religious spin than Christians.
Do you ever find yourself wondering if he's the Anti-Christ? Like in all those awfully made movies. I wasn't raised as a Christian or any other sort of religion but became a born-again Christian in college. I blame it on reading a book called 'Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth'. The author was Hal something or other.
So ever since, as world level politicians come and go, I wonder. Like about Reagan, or Putin, or the current Pope but not John Paul II. Not Bush. Not Carter. Someone with a certain amount of charisma, focused on organizing the nations. And the Anti-Christ is supposed to be an apostate.
I realize that for some of us posters that any religion is a form of mental illness, and that for some us our particular faith is the center of our worldview, while others are indifferent. I can actually manage to consider all three as being possibly valid. So my worldview can be quite different than any other given poster.
Even so, I would be interested in everybody's opinion, as the Anti-Christ is supposed to be able to pull off a peace treaty or agreement between Israel and the Muslim nations. Obviously this has only partially happened.
Opinions can be serious, silly, humorous, dogmatic or whatever. I would be interested in knowing what others think.
He is not the Anti-Christ. The Anti-Christ, according to the Holy Bible is from Europe and a descendant of the people who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Try again !
The Anti Christ like Hitler ,Stalin , Ronald Wilson Reagan , Ozzy, Nero , Benito Mussolini , Pope Paul VI ,Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands , Saddam ,King Juan Carlos of Spain , Prince Charles, Bill Gates , John Rotten all have been accused at some point. Every time a new world leader comes to power there is always somebody shouting Anti Christ.
Best thing is just let them get on with it.
Obama's not the anti-Christ, he's the anti-Pasto. He denies the dominion of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster and is therefore doomed to boil in olive oil (virgin) and garlic for all eternity.
wonderwoman - Obama is half European-American, genetically speaking. On his mother's side.
oldpunk - This is true. Hitler was an anti-christ, but he was not the Anti-Christ. There is even some debate as to whether or not Anti-Christ is a person, versus a system or worldview. I wonder if Muslims have simular character.
martykz - I am familiar with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Perhaps.
No, whimawhopma, I never find myself wondering if he's the Anti-Christ. Out of curiosity, what is the source of your information for your next to last paragraph? i.e., "the Anti-Christ is supposed to be able to pull off a peace treaty or agreement between Israel and the Muslim nations." I've never found anything like that in the bible.
crowoman -
I can't remember if it's in 'Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth' or something like it. In the mid-to-late 1970's I spent a lot time reading end-times literature, about different religions and cults, and books about the various books of the bible.
That and I drank lots and lots of beer. I was single at the time, so I had a lot of spare time on my hands for books and movies, and beer.
Then Star Wars came out in 1977, I saw it about 80 times in the theater and converted over to being a believer in the Force, though I never joined the Jedi Church or anything like that.
All that reading from way back when is still stuck in my head, waiting to pop out at any moment. That and I still love beer, but only two a day. Maybe three when I'm mowing the yard.
I think there are people who literally believe the Anti-Christ is among us today, waiting for his chance to stamp us with a barcode, and all that other stuff.
For myself, when someone like Obama comes along, who I have more faith in than the average politician, I wonder for a brief minute, and then move on.
Weird. Perhaps I am lucky not to be a Moonie.
The only reason there are so many kooks wondering about the "Anti-Christ" is because Obama is black. Think about how stupid it sounds. Why didn't I hear this ridiculous idea about Bush or Clinton - because it doesn't appeal to people's hidden racist fears. Yeah, the Anti-Christ went to Harvard on scholarship, graduated with honors, wrote a best selling book called "Dreams From my Father". I'm pretty sure the devil wouldn't need a scholarship...
Cymatic
In traditional terms the Anti-Christ as the person who ushers in the end-of-days is conjectured to be a man of the people, greatly popular, smart, wise, patient yet forceful, able to persuade people to doing things his way, telegenic, photogenic, a great speech maker, admirable, somebody that people are willing to put great trust in, someone foreign leaders respond to positively. In short a stunningly brilliant politician.
Bill Clinton had his good points and met some of the criteria above, but the country was highly divided in terms of people that either loved him or hated him. He also resembled a younger W.C. Fields and had appetites that were distracting. He was a good politician.
Bush the Younger, well, he managed to be forceful and had a certain kind of folksiness. Beyond that...well, I am trying to curb my BDS.
Bush the Elder was a better man that his son, but didn't quite make the grade as well as Clinton. An OK politician.
Obama is polished, charming, patient, a thinker, a man who measures his words, the country is not evenly divided over him as even some Republicans like him, he likes working with people to getting things done rather than pushing them off, in fact he strives to be inclusive, he is reasonably handsome, he and his family are charming almost to the point that they have become American royals, he's trusted, and he shows a lot of promise and even cynics such as myself are willing to see what happens next.
His being 'black' is what? The very reason he is the way he is? Or is it just part of the whole package, and a not very important one except for his status as the first 'black' president. Admittedly, when he moved to Chicago he identified with the 'black' community structure there, but given the pandemic though waning racism to be found in the United States that decision may have been made for him. I don't know much about his life in New York City.
He's also 'white' by the way. Genetically and culturally, to some degree. Being raised by a 'white' mother and spending a lot of time with his 'white' grand parents made this a certainty. And I am sure he picked up a bit of being 'Indonesian' while living there, the same way I picked up a bit of being 'Spanish' while living in Spain as boy. And he's also 'Hawaiian' to some degree.
I think labeling Obama is dangerous, in the sense that it can lead you astray trying to pigeon hole him as being this or that. I think he's a brilliant politician. With lots of good intentions.
As for the end-times kooks, I don't think that Obama's skin color has much to do with their feelings. I am pretty sure that any previous president was a possible candidate in their minds. Or Pope. Or Russian leader.
People who are looking for something generally find it. One or two markers, and they are there. I am more concerned with a different kind of kook being interested in President Obama, in terms of his being 'black', meaning militant racists. The haters.
I pray for him. Obama's fascination and identification with Lincoln worries me, as much as it makes me appreciate his mind, as I fear irony. Even so, the Secret Service is very good at what they do, and they weren't around to protect Lincoln.
You know, I think it's more of an archetypal story and an inward-self discovery sort of thing. Course, I could be wrong.
I did like to use to tease my Mom that W was the anti-christ b/c he spoke like a child or something like that...she used to get so mad! haha
"even though he still can't find a church in a city full of them".
Oh please.... He is not a Christian becuase he does not go to church?!. You mean all one has to do is go to Church and you are a Christian?. Wow that easy!.
Obama will show he has faith by his ACTIONS, Bush went to "church" and worse yet was a born again and the world and look what he gave us....
Who cares what faith Obama holds, we have had enough of the old white crusty evgagelical faith....
There are more black and yellow evangelicals in the world today than there are white ones. And I think the browns ones are catching up.
Who cares? The majority of America that is Christian. The voters of America who were sold a bill of goods that he was Christian. Just to name a few.
Well said Dawg. He also has in mind the impact that his showing up at a standard service entails
Bush showing up at church was no more than a photo op. He could not have shown his lack of understanding, or belief, of Christianity than launching his attack on Iraq or agreement of enhanced interrogation techniques.
muddog........I don't think I usually agree with you, but in this case, I have to agree. There are so many people who attend church, mosque, or synagogue every week and during the week seem to forget what they experienced. I think you will find that some of our founding fathers were irreligious, and they did a pretty damn good job of founding a country as good as this one.
Thomas Jefferson and quite a few others was not christian when the country was formed.
"Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. ... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you" (Jefferson's Works, Vol. ii., p. 217).
The Obama family has been attending a variety of churches in the Washington area. I don't know if they have actually picked one out. It can take a while to find a church when moving to a new location.
I have moved five times, to different cities in different states, and sometimes it takes months. I went church shopping in Des Moines once and got so tired of looking or trying to fit in that one Sunday the wife and I went over to the local casino instead and I won $50 bucks on the slots. I took it as a sign that I hadn't found the right church yet.
A few weeks later we found a start up church that met in a high school gym. I got to work on the sound crew, doing set up and breakdown as well as running the PA system. A perfect match as I enjoy putting things together and taking them apart, as well as developing my anger management skills, which I needed to be able to handle the talent, meaning the musicians.
I would also imagine that President Obama doesn't have a lot of spare time.
I don't really care what he is. I do care when someone pretends to be a particular relgion for votes. Just be honest and people won't care.
Yes, for some families it is a very serious thing to pick a Church and so I can see why he would be visiting several. Some people just want to pick on anything don't they?
Well, I guess that there is one way Obama could be the AC. He IS trying to get Israel to give some ground and stop the resettlements. If he were to try to force them with military action I guess that would start the big war in the region, but I doubt he would do that. I hope he succeeds diplomatically. But something makes me doubt Israel is going to stop the resettlements.
"Reaction to Obama's Cairo speech ranged from angry comparisons to Bush, praise for his balanced approach-and accusations that he's an apostate."
Just like here in the United States, or at least thedailybeast part of it.
He's got guts. But he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
But for the first time in an American President... he actually appears to understand the region as a whole and our role in it's history. (Which hasn't always been pretty.)
You admit it. You set goals and put your money where your mouth is. And you move forward and put the ball in their court.
The US media isn't reporting the real issue with Obama's speech. Obama insulted all Muslim women. Instead of saying that Arabic women should wear hijabs (head scarves), he said they should wear hajibs (male government officials). This screw-up by Obama is an insult to the virtue of all Muslim women everywhere.
I'm sure they knew if was a gaffe and not intended. They are not stupid. Like when Kennedy said... Ich bin ein Berliner... I'm a jelly donut!
In a speech that was about an hour in length, the real issue was that he accidently switched a vowel in a word? I realize that these two words mean vastly different things, but to say his mispronunciation is "an insult to the virtue of all Muslim women everywhere" seems like an overstatement. Obama said a lot of things about Muslim women, but, at least from my perspective, none of them were meant to insult. I think he was actually trying to shed light on the bigger issues ... that Muslim women should have the right to wear hijabs without discrimination.
If the US media were to report on that mishap they would be doing us all a great injustice. Because they would be distracting us from the real point.
I'll wager that...
A) It was a mistake.
B) People will forgive a man for mistake who is trully trying to make a difference in the world.
I've read several accounts
That his wide audience found
His gaffes hilarious and endearing.
They were greatly appreciative
Of his attempts and viewed
His effort as a sign
Of respect.
he also can't pronounce "sotomayor."
so... BFD.
Neither can I... I screw it up all the time. It takes me 2 or 3 times to get it right.
He also can't use "an" before words beginning with vowels.
Well, not being a Muslim I can't speak to how insulting that is, but I would hope that people would understand a language mix up by a non native speaker. I mean, think of Kennedy, Iche ben ein Berliner or whatever. I'm a donut! It happens, I hardly think it was intentional and I am sure he would offer his sincere apologies.
All of this merely goes to prove that an honest man in a world of dishonesty will always have a hard time. The choicest remarks came from the wingnuts of the Muslim and Christian world. The first calling him a black, apostate slave and the second the Antichrist. one cannot but wonder that such people can even exist in such fantasy, but they do.
BasPos
I ain't calling him the Anti-Christ. But everytime somebody like him comes along, a real leader, I wonder. I think it comes from having read too many books about too many different things. There are too many conflicting ideas in my head.
For example, when I look at the stars, being into astronomy and astrophysics, and I think about the nature of the universe and the possible multiverse, considering the physics of matter and energy, quite often at those times I doubt that God exists.
The same thing happens in church, when I think about the atoms that make up the stage and the sound equipment, seeing the vast empty spaces between them.
All without doing drugs.
I think Obama is an honest man, a good hearted man. He doesn't seem to let his anger get the best of him, and he wishes the best for all of us, without being foolish about like it like Carter. And he's pretty damn smart.
In this I think he is remarkably like Lincoln. Who had his own pack of fools to contend with, as well as the liars, thieves and murderes to be found everywhere.
Well it's nice to know that they see through Obama's extreme narcissism. If I hear Obama's personal story one more time, a kind that he shares with millions of Americans and really isn't all that special, I'm going to throw up.
I also found it ironic that the fundamentalists regard him as black slave. Of course, much of the middle east still uses black slaves and are extremely racist (see Darfur). Imagine how that might change if the race greivance mongerers here in America actually turned their attention to them, where it is needed, instead of the ambiguous "evil white man" in America...
Darfur is all about oil. Nothing else. Nothing racial. Nothing religious. It's all greed murder. A lot of the Janjaweed militia are black Africans.
Go to VBS TV's web webpage Inside Sudan. Shane Smith does an excellent documentary on it.
www.vbs.tv/shows.php?show=570487902
Your statement says you don't know what narcissism is. Narcissists cannot admit it when they err. Obama can and has. It's Bush who would never admit he made a mistake. Methinks you're pegging the wrong president.
Kerano32 - Regarding your question concerning Mary50's generalization about slavery in the Middle East. It's there, though based on the evidence I have found it's not everywhere. The Sudan and the UAE seem to be the main culprits.
http://www.antislavery.org/
http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=183
http://www.meforum.org/189/slavery-in-the-middle-east
http://www.meforum.org/182/slavery-in-the-sudan
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/country_reports/ae.html
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/map.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
where do they still use slaves? please tell me? like you should name at least 10 different countries in the middle east, since according to you "much' of the middle east still uses slaves....
i dont think you will be able to name one. because they dont. you are just being anti-arab
Kerano32 - Sorry, replied in the wrong place.
Regarding your question concerning Mary50's generalization about slavery in the Middle East. It's there, though based on the evidence I have found it's not everywhere. The Sudan and the UAE seem to be the main culprits.
http://www.antislavery.org/
http://www.freetheslaves.net/Page.aspx?pid=183
http://www.meforum.org/189/slavery-in-the-middle-east
http://www.meforum.org/182/slavery-in-the-sudan
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/country_reports/ae.html
http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/map.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking
@sonofloud: The problem with your assumption is your claim that these people made a conscious decision. I would put money down that the decision wasn't conscious but subconscious and they were just following in the footsteps of their ancestors, the reason for most radical views.
From what I heard it wasn't an American apology speech as he has given before oversees. He stated that the Afgan War was necessary and that Iraq was better off without Saddam Hussein (w/out the Iraq War he'd still be there). He also didn't bow to the Saudi King which is an improvement. Keep up the good work President Obama.
wait a minute.... are you telling me that the whole world isn't basking in the warm glow of barack's halo ?!? impossible !!
The speech wasn't bad, as political speeches go.
I usually have a lot of fun doing semantic analysis on political speeches to see what the speech actually said.
Basically, it said, "I'm not Bush, we aren't doormats, the US stands by its allies, we can help you change your world for the better if you want us to".
Not bad for a beginner.
But I recollect the old saying that it isn't words that matter, it's actions.
Let's see what happens next.
Because I don't care how charismatic a speaker someone is if that is all he does.
I'm so glad this thread has remained relatively civil. Thanks for that..
i thing talk on the table is the best way and the second is the military force.nike air max,dunk sb shoes,nike shox shoes,nike basketball shoes
And "i thing" you should take your adverts elsewhere.
I'm sure the Muslim World hopes for the best with Obama but there were at least a couple things that no doubt made them wonder about him:
When he insisted that Al Qaeda did the crimes of 9/11/2001, he reminded me of Colin Powell at the UN, just insisting that his facts and interpretations were correct. It turned out that most everything Powell said was a lie. Do people in the Muslim world give Powell the benefit of the doubt about whether he knew he was telling lies? A lot of people in that part of the world do not believe that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11; they have learned that all the evidence is from confessions under torture; they do not believe the bin Laden confession tape that was "found" in an Al Qaeda safehouse; they think bin Laden has been dead many years (as does the President of Pakistan, who told Meet the Press that his intelligence sources have told him that nothing has been heard out of bin Laden in at least 7 years - so much for all the tapes that keep coming out, especially the one that came out the weekend before the 2004 election).
Also, the fact that Obama visited Buchenwald the day after telling the Muslims to "Get Over It" vis-a-vis all the crap the US has done, like engineering the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran and the Iraq War. What would the Muslim World make of Obama's visit to Buchenwald the next day except that Jewish grievances are special?
Well, I don't think it was to so much say the Jewish grievances are special as that what the Iranian Pres apparently said or anybody who says that the Holocaust didn't happen, well that is silly and unacceptable. Do I personally think that means we should ally ourselves with Israel unconditionally? No, I feel for the Palenstinian people, I really do and I hope that there can be a two state solution and that Obama will work dilligently toward that goal.
The Iranian president says - publically - that the Holocaust didn't happen as bit of deliberate invention. From his perspective the Palestinians are paying the price that Germany and her WWII allies should have paid for their murder campaigns against European Jewry. Since the actual perpetrators of the crime weren't punished (other than a few individuals, but not the nations) then the crime must have not happened. I suspect he knows better, but it's useful to him to bash the West with that bit of logic.
Iran needs little from the West other than the money - oil exchange, other than to be left in peace to decide on their own whether or not Iran needs nuclear weapons. Iran has been bullied by outside powers, chiefly European, though occasionally American, numerous times in the 20th Century. These days that bullying isn't really an option, though name calling and vague threats to unleash Israel can still be indulged in by the West, chiefly America these days.
What I really liked about President Obama's speech was that the point he was making was that we ALL have to work together. Yes, it was rhetoric and not action but the US can't just make everything right. Everyone has to work together and a big part of that is putting the past behind us which is very hard. I think that is a very interesting and good thing about Obama, he works to inspire people to do better things.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.