Obama's apologies to the muslim community

[HappyTikiman]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

4. Would this help or hender the United States relations with the world community?

Debate Material

Obama's speech, scroll down on the webpage

[bernee51]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

Not in you lifetime.


2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

Some will, some won't.


3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

Apologetic?


4. Would this help or hinder the United States relations with the world community?

It is better than killing innocents.

[micatala]

In light of Obama's speech to the Muslim community I think we should have a little debate.

Intro
I live in middle Tennessee and the only talk show radio stations we have is a heavy republican oriented talk radio, and national public radio. NPR was playing the usual classical music, but its not very good while doing hard labour. On the other station. Phil Valentine, local republican talk show hero, had managed to get pretty heated about Obama's recent speech. He did mention some points that I would like to present to this forum.

Questions

1. Is the United States going to become a Muslim dominated country?

Only in the fantasy world of some right-wingers.

2. Will Obama's apologies be accepted by the Muslim community?

I'll ditto bernee on this one.

However, I think any acknowledgements of past realities that people in the U.S. seem to ignore or be unaware of have the potential to help. Reality number one would be the CIA engineered overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (sp?) in Iran in 1953 and the resulting autocratic rule of the Shah of Iran. The Shah was probably not as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he surely wasn't good and he was also corrupt.

Every time I hear "they hate us because of our values" coming out of Bush and others' mouths I want to scream. This is not only patently ridiculous, it is also a pernicious lie that only furthers misunderstanding and encourages U.S. citizens to denigrate Islamic culture and Islamic nations.

3. Should the nation worry about its president's new apologetic direction?

Not if the direction maintains an anchoring to reality and if he proceeds prudently and with "eyes wide open." We should not expect all our international problems with the middle east to go away just because of more measured and reasonable rhetoric. We have some substantive problems that will need to be solved.

4. Would this help or hender the United States relations with the world community?

I think it is likely to be helpful.

[perfessor]

I read the speech, and it is not at all clear to me where Obama is apologizing. This seems to be another fever dream of the right wing.

What am I missing?

[micatala]

I read the speech, and it is not at all clear to me where Obama is apologizing. This seems to be another fever dream of the right wing.

What am I missing?

I confess my original post was made without reading the speech.

Now that I have read it, I can only say "well done Mr. President."

I certainly do not see anything overtly apologetic. I did happen to hear part of a debate on CNN earlier this evening where a spokesperson for the right was hugely critical about Obama's mention of torture and closing Guantanamo. Apparently, this person believes (or would have us believe even though he does not himself believe it) that by not explicitly differentiating between those who crafted our interrogation policies and those who carried them out, Obama was slamming the members of the military involved.

Apparently some also believe that by not upholding the previous policies, we are somehow apologizing for defending ourselves.

All I can say is that this is pretty extreme partisanship. I absolutely applaud Obama's recognition of aspects of history that the policy makers are well aware of (or maybe in W's case "should be" well of aware of) but refuse to mention for political reasons.

[Ms_Maryam]

Apologetic? No.

Even though I disagreed with the President on some of the statements/issues in his speech, I applaud him for this speech, because it was very good.

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

[Goat]

Apologetic? No.

Even though I disagreed with the President on some of the statements/issues in his speech, I applaud him for this speech, because it was very good.

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

I have a few questions for you.

What country are you from?? I would like to know the background of the political situation there (or if you are American).

If you are not American, how do you feel the attitude towards the U.S. changed with the changing of the administration? Has it changed much, and if so, what do you think are the key points to how it has changed?

[East of Eden]

Only in the fantasy world of some right-wingers.

The US won't become Muslim dominated, Europe definately will. With Europeans birth rates below replacement, and Muslims having an average of 8 children, it's only a matter of time before they hit the 51% needed to vote in Sharia law.

However, I think any acknowledgements of past realities that people in the U.S. seem to ignore or be unaware of have the potential to help. Reality number one would be the CIA engineered overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (sp?) in Iran in 1953 and the resulting autocratic rule of the Shah of Iran. The Shah was probably not as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he surely wasn't good and he was also corrupt.

By this reasoning, we should be engaging in terror acts against Islam because of the abuse we got at the hands of the Barbary Pirates around 1800.

Every time I hear "they hate us because of our values" coming out of Bush and others' mouths I want to scream. This is not only patently ridiculous, it is also a pernicious lie that only furthers misunderstanding and encourages U.S. citizens to denigrate Islamic culture and Islamic nations.

Huh? Do you not think the Taliban hates values such as equality of women, freedom of speech and religion?

Mr. HopeChange's apologies will be seen as weekness by the Islamofascists. Apparently he thinks the Taliban & Co. can be persuaded to abandon their madness.

[East of Eden]

He didn't seem too apologetic. We shouldn't think that owning up to one's mistakes if "bad," that's a bit arrogant. He acknowledged the mistakes on both sides, and pressed the issue that me must not go back in history, but we have to look back in history to move forward.

I am Muslim and of all the Muslims that I've spoken with, they were pleased with his speech.

His attempted moral equivalency (mistakes on 'both sides') was ludicrous. Where is the US counter action to 9/11 or the thousands of other crimes by the Islamofascists?

[micatala]

Only in the fantasy world of some right-wingers.

The US won't become Muslim dominated, Europe definately will. With Europeans birth rates below replacement, and Muslims having an average of 8 children, it's only a matter of time before they hit the 51% needed to vote in Sharia law.

We'll see.

However, I think any acknowledgements of past realities that people in the U.S. seem to ignore or be unaware of have the potential to help. Reality number one would be the CIA engineered overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh (sp?) in Iran in 1953 and the resulting autocratic rule of the Shah of Iran. The Shah was probably not as bad as Saddam Hussein, but he surely wasn't good and he was also corrupt.

By this reasoning, we should be engaging in terror acts against Islam because of the abuse we got at the hands of the Barbary Pirates around 1800.

I am not justifying terror on the part of Iran or anyone else. Your statement is a straw man.

I am simply pointing out the reality of why many in Iran have a negative view of the U.S. My personal view is that history teaches us that promoting injustice in our foreign policy is not in our long term interests. We promoted injustice by overthrowing Mossadeq and helping the Shah come to power. Since 1979, we have been reaping the fruits of our actions. Acknowledging this reality might help us avoid such mistakes in the future, and it might also help us create better relations with at least some of those in Iran and the middle east.


To digress somewhat, you might also consider Latin America. We supported dictators and military juntas in Cuba (Battista), Nicaragua (the Somosas), Guatemala, CHile (overthrew Allende and they got Pinochet), and El Salvador for many years. We reaped Castro, the Sandinistas, and arguably Hugo Chavez among others as a result.

Every time I hear "they hate us because of our values" coming out of Bush and others' mouths I want to scream. This is not only patently ridiculous, it is also a pernicious lie that only furthers misunderstanding and encourages U.S. citizens to denigrate Islamic culture and Islamic nations.

Huh? Do you not think the Taliban hates values such as equality of women, freedom of speech and religion?

I would agree the Taliban do not share our values. However, this does not necessarily mean they hate us or support terrorism against us because of our values or at least solely because of those values. The Taliban value system is opposed to those in almost all western countries, including Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, etc. However, Al-Qaeda with the Taliban's support did not strike these other countries, even though their values are very similar to ours. What is the difference between us and these other countries? Why us and not them even though both the U.S. and these other countries espouse freedom, women's rights, respect for religious diversity, etc????



I would submit that among the biggest differences are how much power we wield as a country and how we have exercised that power in the past. Note that Britain is also a stated target of many terrorists. Again, if you study your history you will see why. Britain was instrumental in carving up the middle east after WWI. Britain reneged on its promises to Arabs who helped fight the Ottomans in WWI (see Lawrence of Arabia). Britain helped found the state of Israel, which rightly or wrongly many Arabs perceived as foisting an unwanted state on their land contrary to their previous commitments.


So, yes. The evidence indicates terrorists target the U.S. and the U.K. because of our past (and present) foreign policy actions, not because of our values.

Mr. HopeChange's apologies will be seen as weekness by the Islamofascists. Apparently he thinks the Taliban & Co. can be persuaded to abandon their madness.

I suggest you read the speech (again if necessary)

I challenge you to show me where there are any words of apology in the speech.





In addition, I think Obama understands that the most radical elements are beyond persuasion. I think his goal is to undercut the support that these radical elements receive, both active and tacit support, by trying to peal off more moderate and peace-loving Muslims. I don't see any indication that he doesn't understand that the Taliban and other ultra-extremists are not likely to change or compromise.