Obama’s Speech in Egypt: A Seminal moment?

[SirJosephPorter]

So, Obama's speech to the Islamic world, perhaps, maybe, perchance, included Iran??

Sure, Obama’s speech was addressed to all of Muslim world, so what is your point, Yukon?

Let us run a hypothetical: If there were elections held in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria or elsewhere in the Muslim World, would his speech have any difference?

It is pointless to speculate about hypothetical situations. We do know that it may have made a difference in Lebanon. As I said before, it is ridiculous to expect that one speech will magically solve all the problems. Obama’s speech set the right tone; it was a welcome change from the confrontational tone set by Bush, a change from his shoot from the hip policies. And it may have possibly made a difference in Lebanon. That is all that can be realistically expected from on speech.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sweden in Grip of Islam. The religion of peace, has yet to prove itself.
Sweden in Grip of Islam Video

I do not think Islam will accept anything but complete surrender to their religion and way of life. Yes, Sweden is probably the most Democratic country in the world and look where it is getting them.

Pat Robertson is a right wing extremist; I wouldn’t take his word for anything. If anybody wants to find out what is going on in Sweden, the proper source would be Swedish newspapers, and not Pat Robertson’s religious right broadcast.

I saw the video and it is the usual rant against the left.

 

[ironsides]

Why quote newspapers, in Muslim countries they usually hang reporters who speak out against them. Pat Robertson is Right wing, but I hardly think an extremist. Neo Nazi's fall into that category.


Muslim Demographics
YouTube - Muslim Demographics

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Why quote newspapers, in Muslim countries they usually hang reporters who speak out against them. Pat Robertson is Right wing, but I hardly think an extremist. Neo Nazi's fall into that category.


Muslim Demographics
YouTube - Muslim Demographics

Pat Robertson is an extremist, in my opinion. He is one of the leaders of the religious right. An extremist doesn’t always mean a Nazi, a Communist, a terrorist etc. A person may work towards changing the society by peaceful means and still hold extreme views.

Pat Robertson’s ultimate aim is to bring Fundamentalist Christian a Theocracy to USA. In my opinion, that makes him an extremist. His aim is the same as that of Al Qaeda (world evangelization), only his means are different.

 

[Cannuck]

As Joey has stated before, if less than 25% of people support an idea, cause, group or philosophy it is extremist. He never did explain why he supported the extremist Liberal Party of Canada. In any event, ironsides, you are debating with a self professed extremist and I'm assuming Joey would know better than anybody as to what he is or isn't.

 

[Walter]

What has Iran to do with Obama’s speech? The speech was well received in Islamic world;

Your ignorance is showing, Roo.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

80% of the Iranian population voted, the majority hate Ahmadinejad and the results were 62.65% in favor of a man widely hated, how can that be?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101299.stm

The Ahmadinejad Government have hang 14 - 15-year-old kids from lamppost to teach others to behave, and they have the audacity to call Obama’s speech just words.
Obama needs no change of any kind but rather these pathetic misinformed losers do.
If Ahmadinejad stays as president, the Middle East will become a mess in the next 4 years.

This election is fraud and these idiots below are talking self-serving propaganda.

"The Obama administration so far has just talked. By words and talking the ... problems between Iran and America cannot be solved."
"Nowruz (the Iranian New Year which falls today) is a sign of fundamental development in nature and Obama should learn from this to make fundamental changes in his policy toward Iran."
"The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behavior but we are waiting for practical steps by the United States."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101299.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/06/090615_iran_15june_dm.shtml

 

[ironsides]

Sir. Think this out a little, I think that you are as extreme Left as Pat Robertson is Right. Just because someone believes or does not in what the Bible teaches does not make them an extremist.

"Pat Robertson’s ultimate aim is to bring Fundamentalist Christian a Theocracy to USA. In my opinion, that makes him an extremist. His aim is the same as that of Al Qaeda (world evangelization), only his means are different."

Wanting to promote change is not against the law, how you do it could be. Our Constitution protects us from the church involving itself in our goverment. Our Constitution also protects ones freedom to do pretty much as they want as far as religion is concerned.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sir. Think this out a little, I think that you are as extreme Left as Pat Robertson is Right.

Ironsides, that is a matter of opinion, isn’t it? Anyway, on some issues (such as abortion, gar marriage, death penalty, universal health care etc.), I probably will be considered extreme left by American standards (though I represent the centre left in Canada).

Wanting to promote change is not against the law, how you do it could be.

I agree. However, even if you want to bring about the change lawfully, you still could have extreme views. An extremist is not the same as terrorist. Thus Pat Robertson (and the religious right) wants to pass constitutional amendments banning abortion, banning gay marriage, to bring back school prayers, to ban flag burning and so on. That makes him an extremist in my opinion.

A terrorist advocates overthrowing the government by violent means. An extremist may or may not espouse violent means, but he is an extremist nonetheless. Besides the religious right, I can think of many other extremists who want to change the country by peaceful means. Thus the Pope or cult leaders (like David Koresh) are extremists, but not terrorists.

 

[Cannuck]

Sir. Think this out a little, I think that you are as extreme Left as Pat Robertson is Right.

By Joey's own standards, he is an extremist on the left fringes. He has defined what that is and placed himself in that category. I don't know why he is trying to refute that now.

 

[ironsides]

Sir:
"Pass constitutional amendments banning abortion, banning gay marriage, to bring back school prayers, to ban flag burning and so on."

See now, here we also differ, I find no objection to any or all of these topics you mentioned, they mean nothing to me whether they pass or not. What I do object to is minorities (any minorities being able to get meaningless changes made for the whole passed in support their own personal agendas and ego's) Seems in Canada it is easier to make changes, while in the U.S. a Constitutional change must be really thought out before being approved or disapproved by the States, and citizens. By the way, no change will ever be passed giving one religion any more rights than another or become part of the goverment.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

See now, here we also differ, I find no objection to any or all of these topics you mentioned, they mean nothing to me whether they pass or not.

Ironsides, certainly we differ on this. I would have strong objections to abortion being banned, gays being declared second class citizens, bringing back Christian prayers in schools etc. In my opinion that will represent a full fledged, frontal attack on basic human right, civil rights.

What I do object to is minorities

Again we differ here; I have no problem granting equal rights to minorities.

Seems in Canada it is easier to make changes, while in the U.S. a Constitutional change must be really thought out before being approved or disapproved by the States,

It is even more difficult to change the constitution in Canada than in USA. A constitutional amendment must be ratified by 7 provinces out of 9 (now 10), encompassing at least 50% of the population. What this means is that either Ontario or Québec must sign on to the amendment. If both are opposed, the amendment doesn’t get ratified.

However, amending the constitution when it involves basic human rights (amending the Charter) is even more difficult. It need unanimous approval, each and every province must approve it.

 

[ironsides]

Here are three words that have been thrown around lately "basic human rights".

What exactly are Basic Human Rights? The term means something different to almost everyone, but basic human rights cannot be right for all, some must lose out because or what others perceive has their basic human rights.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here are three words that have been thrown around lately "basic human rights".

What exactly are Basic Human Rights? The term means something different to almost everyone, but basic human rights cannot be right for all, some must lose out because or what others perceive has their basic human rights.

Right you are, ironsides. At one time, basic human rights did not include vote for women. It was OK to treat women as second class citizens, that did not violate anybody’s basic human rights.

At another time, it was OK to segregate blacks in ghettos, to deny blacks opportunities in education, employment, housing etc. and that did not violate any basic human rights.

These days it is fashionable to treat gays as second class citizens (at least in USA, in Canada they have achieved full equality), to deny them all kinds of rights, that does not violate any basic human rights.

Indeed, gays are the only minority left for whom persecution is justified, in the opinion of many conservatives. Among conservative circles, it is politically correct to hate gays. Discriminating against gays presumably does not deny anybody’s basic human rights. And in spite of the advance that gay marriage had made in several of the states, in most of the states in USA it is still perfectly permissible to discriminate against gays. It is permitted by law to fire somebody just because he is gay, to throw somebody out of his apartment just because he is gay etc. Presumably that does not violate anybody’s basic human rights.

So in a way you are right, the term ‘basic human rights’ means different things to different people.

 

[pgs]

See now, here we also differ, I find no objection to any or all of these topics you mentioned, they mean nothing to me whether they pass or not.

Ironsides, certainly we differ on this. I would have strong objections to abortion being banned, gays being declared second class citizens, bringing back Christian prayers in schools etc. In my opinion that will represent a full fledged, frontal attack on basic human right, civil rights.

What I do object to is minorities

Again we differ here; I have no problem granting equal rights to minorities.

Seems in Canada it is easier to make changes, while in the U.S. a Constitutional change must be really thought out before being approved or disapproved by the States,

It is even more difficult to change the constitution in Canada than in USA. A constitutional amendment must be ratified by 7 provinces out of 9 (now 10), encompassing at least 50% of the population. What this means is that either Ontario or Québec must sign on to the amendment. If both are opposed, the amendment doesn’t get ratified.

However, amending the constitution when it involves basic human rights (amending the Charter) is even more difficult. It need unanimous approval, each and every province must approve it.

I was of the understanding that our country had 10 provinces when our constitution was ratified.And where do the territories fit in here?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I was of the understanding that our country had 10 provinces when our constitution was ratified.And where do the territories fit in here?

Sorry pgs, I misspoke there. I think it is 2/3rd of the provinces, not 3/4th. Out of ten, that come to 7, out of 11 (as we now have) that comes to 8.

But the rest is substantially correct. For things that truly matter, unanimous consent of all provinces is required. As far as I am aware, the territories have no say in the constitutional amendment process.

 

[ironsides]

Remember the Federal Reserve is a private organization ( Nothing to do with the Federal Goverment) created by the Bankers and rich people. Never mind all these little civil right things they have us focused on.We bicker about the small stuff and they change the world. Stop our goverments from creating money out of nothing and all the other little problems will take care of them selves.

YouTube - Gerald Celente: Washington is Wall St. and Wall St. is Washington


"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."
- Barack Obama

 

[earth_as_one]

If Obama really wanted to indicate that its not business as usual in Washington regarding the middle east, he would not use the term "settlement" to describe ethnic cleansing or ignore war crimes:

The Nation
Foreign Affairs
Israeli/Palestinian Conflict

Israel's Crimes, America's Silence

By John Dugard


June 17, 2009

President Obama's recent speech to the Muslim World failed to address allegations that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. Palestinians and people throughout the region were shocked at the firepower Israel brought to bear against Gaza's civilians and do not want Palestinians' ongoing misery to be further ignored. Many were surely waiting to hear from President Obama that the way to peace does not lie through the devastation of civilian life and infrastructure in Gaza.

To date, too little mention has been made of investigations that show there is sufficient evidence to bring charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against Israel's political and military leadership for their actions in Gaza. Recently, two comprehensive independent reports have been published on Gaza, and earlier this month a mission mandated by the UN Human Rights Council, and chaired by South African Richard Goldstone, visited Gaza to conduct a further investigation into Israel's offensive.

On May 4 the United Nations published the findings of an investigation into attacks carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on UN premises in Gaza. Led by Ian Martin, formerly head of Amnesty International, this investigation found Israel responsible for wrongfully killing and injuring Palestinians on UN premises and destroying property amounting to over $10 million in value. Although this investigation did not address the question of individual criminal responsibility, it is clear that the identified wrongful acts by Israel constituted serious war crimes...

Israel's Crimes, America's Silence

 

[YukonJack]

Based on his gutless reaction to what is happeninng in Iran, it is safe to say that if he - Hussain Obama - had been President in the 1980's, we would still have a Soviet Union.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Based on his gutless reaction to what is happeninng in Iran, it is safe to say that if he - Hussain Obama - had been President in the 1980's, we would still have a Soviet Union.

There is a difference of opinion as to what caused the USSR to disappear. The Republicans (of course) give the credit to Reagan. Some others give the credit to Gorbachev.