--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama said in an interview with Al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based satellite television network. "We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."
During his run for the White House, Obama pledged to improve ties with the Muslim world, draw down U.S. troops in Iraq and close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The president also has pledged to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital in the first 100 days of his administration. No location has been announced.
Obama said the United States will go after terrorist groups that kill innocent civilians but will do so while respecting the rule of law. The president said that difference makes America great.
The Obama administration also has taken an early interest in the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, with the president naming former Sen. George Mitchell as his special envoy to the region. Mitchell is scheduled to arrive in the Mideast on Tuesday to shore up a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Gaza's Hamas leadership.

"Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions," Obama said. "But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead it's time to return to the negotiating table."
Obama said the United States will start by listening, not dictating, and then a response will be formulated after consultations with all the major parties involved.
Obama's interview was seen widely in Pakistan and has received a generally positive response from analysts there.


Let's discuss

sourced from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/obama.arabia/index.html

Can someone tell Davidylan and the rest of the "kill all Muslims crowd" that the new president of the US is not an Islamophobe like them.

I'm sure the Zionists won't like this one.

Hassan Nasarallah, Ismael Haniya, Osama Bin Ladin etc are not anti west ?

bindex:

Hassan Nasarallah, Ismael Haniya, Osama Bin Ladin etc are not anti west ?

No question, for different reasons though. Some of the names up there are also anti Arab government.

Let me start by saying I like how The President is approaching the Middle East issue. President Obama is a statesman and I can project that after his term in the White House I would love to see him become The Secretary General of the United Nations. That position is below his career status as a US President but it will be an advancement for him in terms of Global reach of influence to converge powers for improvement in human relations and peace. This does not make him a messiah, he is still open to criticisms in a number of areas where he is wanting.

Demarcations around his use of term "Muslims" ought to be clarified. The President, in this broadcast, is appealing to mainstream Muslims in specific regions. I cannot imagine that his address was targeted at the Muslims of West Africa. Can you? He is focusing on the Muslims in turbulent regions like The Horn of Africa, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, South East Asia. E


discriminatedHaving said that, we should weigh in flexibly on the new dimension of America - Muslim World relationship pre and post 9/11. Pre 9/11, there existed in the Muslim world

Unfortunately I think he is wrong on this one.

The Arab world using "Islam" as an excuse to Arabize the world will be the enemies of the west for a long time coming.

morpheus24:

Unfortunately I think he is wrong on this one.

The Arab world using "Islam" as an excuse to Arabize the world will be the enemies of the west for a long time coming.

What the flying fuc.k are you talking about?

Do you make any sense at all?

Sorry about that error. . .  fingers moving too fast than eyes can keep up!    I will continue. . .


Prior to 9/11 America had few problems with these turbulent regions.  Much of the hatred we see today is the result of American aggression against these people so it is wrong to even suggest that "America does not hate Muslims".  American audience may buy that but I am not sure that Muslim audience buy it.  There existed a handful of anti-America jihadists prior to 9/11, chief amongst them was Al Qaeda.  Their primary grievance was that America and the West should cease to influence political and economic policies in their motherland because while it benefits American interest and the enrichment of the local King or Sultan or Sheik to do so, predominantly the general citizen is suffering under the burden of those policies.  Is that too much to ask?  Al Qaeda used extreme violence to substantiate its request.  To even dare to attack America with weaponry, much more execute a deadly  attack on its soil, bears testimony to the fact that Qaeda had access to the vulnerable points in American defense and it knew how to push those soft points.  CIA trained the Mujaheedins, which later on morphed to become Al Qaeda.  Add the tactics of warfare they learnt fighting the Soviets with the strategic training and armory that America gave to them and you have a formidable unit of land warriors.  Sovereign Muslim Nations did not want Qaeda on its soil.  This is why Saddam did not have sympathy for them and Iran forbade them from its territory.  Syria was against them and Saudi Arabia helped to push them out of Sudan and far away from anywhere close to its homefront.

Contrast that with today.  America has made it easier for Sovereign Muslim Nations to choose the easier of two evils between America and Qaeda.  So it might not surprise to see that Qaeda type elements become proxy warriors for anti-American stance in the Middle East and that's what we see in Hamas and Hezbollah.  

Without boring you with lengthy talk, President Obama is a good candidate to reverse the damages in relations and I believe he started well.  Only time will tell.  I must say though that he is not going to gain back grounds that were lost under Bush.  Like Iran nuclear ambition or the control of Lebanon by Hezbollah.

Negro_Ntns:

Sorry about that error. . .  fingers moving too fast than eyes can keep up!    I will continue. . .


Prior to 9/11 America had few problems with these turbulent regions.  Much of the hatred we see today is the result of American aggression against these people so it is wrong to even suggest that "America does not hate Muslims".  American audience may buy that but I am not sure that Muslim audience buy it.  There existed a handful of anti-America jihadists prior to 9/11, chief amongst them was Al Qaeda.  Their primary grievance was that America and the West should cease to influence political and economic policies in their motherland because while it benefits American interest and the enrichment of the local King or Sultan or Sheik to do so, predominantly the general citizen is suffering under the burden of those policies.  Is that too much to ask?  Al Qaeda used extreme violence to substantiate its request.  To even dare to attack America with weaponry, much more execute a deadly  attack on its soil, bears testimony to the fact that Qaeda had access to the vulnerable points in American defense and it knew how to push those soft points.  CIA trained the Mujaheedins, which later on morphed to become Al Qaeda.  Add the tactics of warfare they learnt fighting the Soviets with the strategic training and armory that America gave to them and you have a formidable unit of land warriors.  Sovereign Muslim Nations did not want Qaeda on its soil.  This is why Saddam did not have sympathy for them and Iran forbade them from its territory.  Syria was against them and Saudi Arabia helped to push them out of Sudan and far away from anywhere close to its homefront.

Contrast that with today.  America has made it easier for Sovereign Muslim Nations to choose the easier of two evils between America and Qaeda.  So it might not surprise to see that Qaeda type elements become proxy warriors for anti-American stance in the Middle East and that's what we see in Hamas and Hezbollah.  

Without boring you with lengthy talk, President Obama is a good candidate to reverse the damages in relations and I believe he started well.  Only time will tell.  I must say though that he is not going to gain back grounds that were lost under Bush.  Like Iran nuclear ambition or the control of Lebanon by Hezbollah.  

Excellent summary! More people, especially Nigerian-Americans who are ignorant of the strong ties between the CIA and al-Qaeda (the Afghanistan Connexion) should read this.

Idiots, there are no strong ties between the CIA and Al-qaeda.  those ties are misresprentations of the relationship the ISI ( SS outfit of pakistan) had with the taliban.  The taliban hosted al-qaeda.  Al-qaeda was formed after the soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.  The CIA sent aid to the ISI who wanted to keep afghanistan from Indian control by sponsoring the taliban. 

So it might not surprise to see that Qaeda type elements become proxy warriors for anti-American stance in the Middle East and that's what we see in Hamas and Hezbollah. 

another retarded comparison.  Al qaeda is a sunni group while hamas/hezbollah are shia groups.  nasrallah has repeatedly distanced himself from Osama bin laden. 

I must say though that he is not going to gain back grounds that were lost under Bush. Like Iran nuclear ambition or the control of Lebanon by Hezbollah.

umm hezbollah was entrenched in Southern Lebanon way before Bush. where do you get your history notes from?

bawomolo:

umm hezbollah was entrenched in Southern Lebanon way before Bush. where do you get your history notes from?

does anyone still bother with that blockhead called Negro?

Contrast that with today. America has made it easier for Sovereign Muslim Nations to choose the easier of two evils between America and Qaeda. So it might not surprise to see that Qaeda type elements become proxy warriors for anti-American stance in the Middle East and that's what we see in Hamas and Hezbollah.

hmm no, HAMAS was born in the late 80s as a splinter group from the Muslim brotherhood in Gaza (the brotherhood is a banned political party in Egypt that is more than 50yrs old), Hezbollah was formed in 1982 to fight Israel in its war against Lebanon . . . there was no Al Qaeda then so what rubbish are you saying? Which came before the other?

For those who can still read, think and understand:

The mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter[3] and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several Western European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interagent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the sources of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine, which included U.S. support for anti-Soviet resistance movements in Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua, and elsewhere.[4]

The main base station of mujahideen in Pakistan was the town Badaber, 24 km from Peshawar. Afghanistan mujahideen were trained in the Badaber base under supervision by military instructors from the U.S.A., Pakistan, and the Republic of China . --Wikipedia

For the link between the Mujahideen and al-Qaeda, you can start here.

US toddler-driven foreign policy established al-Qaeda.

RichyBlacK:

Excellent summary! More people, especially Nigerian-Americans who are ignorant of the strong ties between the CIA and al-Qaeda (the Afghanistan Connexion) should read this.

It's a known fact that Osama bin Laden was trained by CIA

Bawo,

I already covered this with David in another topic and I should do the same with you. Do you need clarification or do you prefer to throw tantrum on this discussion?

MrCrackles:

What the flying fuc.k are you talking about?

Do you make any sense at all?

Go back and take some history lessons then go listen to some Mullahs preaching in South London,

When you are done, come ask me that question again!

morpheus24:

Go back and take some history lessons then go listen to some Mullahs preaching in South London,

When you are done, come ask me that question again!

Fuc,k history!
Who the hell are you?

Mullahs ko, Rulers ni!!

Negro_Ntns:

Bawo,

I already covered this with David in another topic and I should do the same with you. Do you need clarification or do you prefer to throw tantrum on this discussion?

Ngwah stop that nonsense forthwith! Covered what with who?

Nna, you know say you no get sense, I swear! Your own worse pass Funmi. I hope she no hear me.

Shebi na you get sense pass abi? Verbose slowpoke.

I am proud of my verbosity. I wear it as a badge of honor.

Are you proud of your timid juvenile mind?

MrCrackles:

Fuc,k history!
Who the hell are you?

Mullahs ko, Rulers ni!!

I am MORPHEUS

The greek god of Sleep

Who are your snap, crackle and pop!

It's a known fact that Osama bin Laden was trained by CIA

i repeat again, it's a known fact that Osama bin Laden was armed and trained by the ISI.  the ISI was the secret service in contact with the Mujahadeen.  Osama was then, just one of the numerous fighters in the war against the soviet union.  There is no direct link between the CIA and osama.

US toddler-driven foreign policy established al-Qaeda.

The US building military bases in Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait led to the formation of Al-Qaeda, an hate filled group that thinks it's protecting Islam and "holy" lands.

bawomolo:

The US building military bases in Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait led to the formation of Al-Qaeda, an hate filled group that thinks it's protecting Islam and "holy" lands.

Let me also remind them the US had to do this to protect them from the madman called Saddam Hussein who had already set a precedent by invading Iran and Kuwait.

bawomolo:

i repeat again, it's a known fact that Osama bin Laden was armed and trained by the ISI.  the ISI was the secret service in contact with the Mujahadeen.  Osama was then, just one of the numerous fighters in the war against the soviet union.  There is no direct link between the CIA and osama.

The US building military bases in Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait led to the formation of Al-Qaeda, an hate filled group that thinks it's protecting Islam and "holy" lands.

Finally! We're making some progress.

My hope is that Barack will break away from decades of childish "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll _{*cry like baby*}", ota akara foreign policy the US has adopted. Adults, not toddlers (like neocons), should be running US foreign policy. I still don't have much confidence in Hillary, but let's see how things play out.

RichyBlacK:

Finally! We're making some progress.

My hope is that Barack will break away from decades of childish "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll _{*cry like baby*}", ota akara foreign policy the US has adopted. Adults, not toddlers (like neocons), should be running US foreign policy. I still don't have much confidence in Hillary, but let's see how things play out.

of course we know you'd say this. Those countries invited the US and not vice versa, you think kuwait is complaining about American presence? I hope you also realize a democrat and not a neocon ordered bombings of Iraq and Sudan. You are dreaming if you think US foreign policy would turn soft.

My hope is that Barack will break away from decades of childish "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll *cry like baby*", ota akara foreign policy the US has adopted

Whatever the uneducated may think, US foriegn policy over the last decade has been reactive not pre-emptive.
The Barbie doll quote tends to come from other countries:

Iran: "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll"
North Korea: "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll"
Syria: ""I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll"
Zimbabwe: ""I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll"

US policy is: "I'll stick that Barbie doll up your ass"

It's the other guys who are whining and crying. The US position is to come and beat the crap out of them when it hears them.

Except for Hamas.

US policy there is: "We'll let Israel stick that Barbie doll up your ass"

and Israel is doing a good job at it

RichyBlacK:

Finally! We're making some progress.

My hope is that Barack will break away from decades of childish "I hate you and won't let you touch my barbie doll _{*cry like baby*}", ota akara foreign policy the US has adopted. Adults, not toddlers (like neocons), should be running US foreign policy. I still don't have much confidence in Hillary, but let's see how things play out.

I honestly think Hilary would be a negaitivity on Obamas foreign policy. Remember her saying she would obliterate iran if it attacked israel , that statement was on called for and forgeting that all the military bases and soldiers of US in the middle east are all within the reach of Iran as well.

The problem US faced even before Bush was Americas impearilist approach to the world, Having bases and presence in all continents of the world is not to protect americas territory but rather to meddle with other peoples affairs and that is what the anti america sentiment has been about before the Bush era.

To the muslim world - they hate the support US gives to their evil regims and want a leader chosen by them that reflects what they believe in and proetect their values. Virtually all leaders in the middle east are despots and wicked regimes.

few examples:
Mubarak is the lord of evil in the middle east- Egypt
Saudi royal family a bunch of lackeys and their people dont like them.
Ghadaffi - once a mad dog but suddenly becomes a friend of the US and UK cos he gave up nuclear arms.

The muslim world want america to stop meddling with their affairs and treat them with respect.
Al qaeda hated the presece of US troops in Saudi arabia.
Why is the US 3rd largest naval fleet in Bahrain?
Bases in doha Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Bases everywhere in the world.
They even wanted a base in Nigeria, The day Africom is established in Nigeria is the day our country would start having alqaeda and may God forbid them succeeding.

US should pull their bases into their borders and have a more peaceful foriegn policy.
The US should stop supporting leaders as long as they are in US interest. some of the worlds devlsih dictators have or had the backing of US e.g Uzebekistans karimov, Turkeminstans leader, Egypt, Musharaf before stepping down, Saddam,Mobutu, etc

US should pull their bases into their borders and have a more peaceful foriegn policy.

Yeah, great idea. That's assuming that the world is a Utopia that lives in peace.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The people of the Middle East may hate their regimes, but the alternative is extremism. Don't believe me? Take a look. Everywhere that an established regime has been overthrown, extremists have either taken hold of government or stolen a disproportionate voice. Or do you think that these countries will naturally progress to democracy? Iraq is a pointer that they will not.


So yeah, it would be nice if the US could pull everything back into their borders but you can guarantee that if they did, there are many more people who would lose their lives or exist in misery without the Yanks there to keep the extremists in check.

Bastage:

Yeah, great idea. That's assuming that the world is a Utopia that lives in peace.
Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The people of the Middle East may hate their regimes, but the alternative is extremism. Don't believe me? Take a look. Everywhere that an established regime has been overthrown, extremists have either taken hold of government or stolen a disproportionate voice. Or do you think that these countries will naturally progress to democracy? Iraq is a pointer that they will not.

1. Can you name one example of this country apart from Afghanistan.
2. what do you mean by extremist? If you mean religious extremism now that is relative and a big debate however if a peaople say that is who they want i think their wish should be respected. An example is Hamas the only democratic elected govt in the whole arab world wasnt recognised by the US and EU and this are the same people that say they want to spread democracy and freedom.

Netanyahu is a far right "extremist" and assuming he wins the election and The US said they would not recognise the govt because Netanyahu doesnt support a 2 state solution. what would the world say?

There is one fact majority of the world dont like US impearilist style and the US has to change because in 20 -30 yrs the balance of power most probably would certainly shift to another part of the world.

Lagosboy:

1. Can you name one example of this country apart from Afghanistan.

Somalia!

1. Can you name one example of this country apart from Afghanistan.

Sure.
In Europe there was Serbia and Bosnia when Yugoslavia broke up. Then you've got places like Chechnya when the Soviet Union broke up.
In Asia, you had Cambodia.
In Africa, Somalia.
In the Middle East, Lebanon and Iran.

And that's just a couple of examples without even bothering to look for any. Only a dreamer thinks that the Middle East would have peaceful transitions of governments if their regimes were to fall. Look at your history books.

If you mean religious extremism now that is relative and a big debate however if a peaople say that is who they want i think their wish should be respected.

Their wish should be respected? Unfortunately, extremists don't respect anyone else's wishes. They tend to want to expand thier areas of influence - especially religious extremists.

An example is Hamas the only democratic elected govt in the whole arab world wasnt recognised by the US and EU and this are the same people that say they want to spread democracy and freedom.

A democratically elected government which forced out the opposition in a violent coup. A democratically elected government whose people are now afraid to say anthing negative about it (read Palestinian opinions, you'll see this is true). A democratically elected government whose charter calls for the explicit destruction of the State of Israel.
And you call the West hypocrites and the Israelis warmongers?

There is one fact majority of the world dont like US impearilist style and the US has to change because in 20 -30 yrs the balance of power most probably would certainly shift to another part of the world.

What fact? The majority of people don't give a crap about US "impearilist style" simply because it doesn't affect them. The only ones who do whine about it are the idiots who would, in the most part, like to see the whole world governed by their religion.
If the balance of power shifted their way in 20-30 years then there is at least one good thing that will come about and that is that nobody will have to read the crap that you write. Simply because freedom of expression will be a thing of the past.