Barack Obama seems more concerned with how he talks to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than what he would actually say.
Methinks Barack Obama doth protest too much.
In honoring Israel before members of the Knesset on its 60th anniversary on May 14th, President Bush said:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
President Bush never mentioned Obama by name. However, Bush did refer to an American senator and perhaps this was sufficient provocation to raise the ire of one Senator Obama (and for that matter Senators Clinton, Kerry and Biden). Obama promptly issued a statement declaring, "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." The last time I checked Iran is not only on the State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism, it is consistently ranked as the most active sponsor of terrorism in the world. As John McCain points out, "Barack Obama wants to sit down with their sponsors. If he doesn't want to sit down with Hamas then he shouldn't want to sit down with their sponsor." McCain also posed this question, "What does he want to talk about with Ahmadinejad who said that Israel's a stinking corpse, who said that he wants to wipe Israel off the map, who's sending the most explosive devices into Iraq, killing Americans?" But apparently this does not give Obama pause for thought.
In a speech before voters in Watertown, South Dakota on May 16th, Obama said, "George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for." But Obama has some explaining of his own to do. Obama lambasted McCain for having a "naïve and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism." Does this mean Obama believes Bush and McCain are being mean to Iran? So what does Obama construe to as "tough talk" against Iran? Our efforts to have the UN Security Council impose sanctions against Iran? If Obama doesn't believe "tough talk" will persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism what sort of language does he think will work instead? Would Obama apologize to Ahmadinejad for our "tough talk"? Apparently, Obama is giving more thought in how he would talk to Ahmadinejad rather than in what he would actually talk about. Not only does Barack Obama aim to please, he aims to appease.
As long as Obama makes dialogue with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the centerpiece of his foreign policy he would be wise to be prepared to face up to the inevitable and justifiable criticism of his position.
aargold24@hotmail.com
http://www.poetsforthewar.org
Read more articles by Aaron Goldstein
Aaron, me thinks thou doest protest too much about Iran!
“But because of their [the Jews] breach of their Covenant [at Mount Sinai - Koran 5:13], We [Allah, that is] cursed them” [Koran 5:14].
“Those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath [the Jews, of course], those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine …” [Koran 5:63] And as we all know, pretty much every Islamic school, or should I say every school in any Islamic country (and most Western countries), teaches that the Jews are apes and swine, and need to be eliminated.
And so I could go on for pages and pages with quotes from the Koran in a similar vain regarding both Jews and Christians, but I have set them out in numerous articles, and my books, and frankly, I can’t be bothered picking up that book again to refresh my memory.
Ahmadinejad does nothing more than say what every Muslim believes, and they believe it because the Koran, the Word of Allah Himself, says so.
We could obliterate Iran tomorrow, followed by say Pakistan, then perhaps a few Gulf states, but the problem will continue – because it is written as such in the Koran – the Word of Allah Himself.
Instead of quibbling about whether we should talk to Iran, or kiss Saudi cheeks (of both kinds), perhaps we could at some point have an informed debate about the root of the problem – Islam, and the Koran. But I won’t hold my breath!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrighrts.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 24, 2008
Aaron, a further short request.
If you are aware of some reason why not talking to Iran would bring about some dramatic transformation of Islamic thought – ie, that they would reject what they regard as the Word of Allah Himself – and see things as we do, I really do think you should share that insight with the rest of us.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 24, 2008
I think the first question to be asked about Obama "talking to Iran" is "what does he wish to say?" Political talk (between heads of state) is about power and pretending that a few slogans and a nice suit will accomplish something independently is foolishness. While Obama's supporters rave about his charm and relentlessly project their own utopias into his vagueries, they underestimate the seriousness of America's opponents. The Islamic leaders in ALgeria, Iran and Afghanistan hold their beliefs dearly. The idea that Obama can boogie into Teheran or the outskirts of ALgiers and convince the mullahs that they should throw aside their centuries old convictions because of "New politics" betrays condescension typical of the ignorant. Obama's supporters would do well to remember that there have been plenty of messiahs that have come along before Obama–and their longevity has to do with ruthlessness.
Comment by Nathan Alexander | May 25, 2008
Nathan and Aaron,
What Would Obama talk to Ahmadinejad about, and where?
If Obama sought my advice it would be this.
Invite Ahmadinejad to a debate in front of the nations of the world – at the United Nations – no pre-conditions.
Obama could then put certain questions to him. It would go something like this:
1. Do you believe that God turned the Jews into apes and swine, as the Koran says? – give reference.
2. Do you believe that the Jews and Christians falsified their Scriptures, as the Koran claims? – give reference.
3. Do you believe it is blasphemy to call Jesus the son of God, as the Koran claims? – give reference.
4. Do you believe that Muslims should strike terror in the hearts of unbelievers, as the Koran claims? – give reference.
5. Do you believe that Muslims must fight with their “goods and persons” against everyone, including Jews and Christians, until they feel subdued and pay the Jizwa, as the Koran claims? – give reference.
6. Do you believe that the ‘resurrection of the dead’ will only come when the Muslims war with the Jews and kill them, at which time even the trees and rocks will say, “O Muslim, O Abdullah, here is a Jew behind me, come and kill him”? – a Haddith of the Prophet Mohammed.
These are only be a small selection of a long list.
At the end of the debate, we could then have a show of hands from the floor of the UN on who won the debate. That, I expect, would be revealing.
Such a debate would perhaps also clarify in Western ‘minds’ what we are really up against.
It would at least be a start, and better than the present references to the “war against you know who” (Frum and Pearl referencing Harry Potter).
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 26, 2008
Joseph,
I think your argument undermines your conclusion. Islam is Islam. It will always be Islam. Pretending like it is possible, through some magical diplomatics, to change the way that Islamic terrorists believe and behave is senseless and hopelessly ignorant or naive (in some cases, maybe both). In the sense that it doesn't matter one bit what Barack Obama says to Iran, or Syria, or Hamas, or a brick wall, "talking" to Iran doesn't mean much. In the sense that it will accomplish nothing, serves no interest of the United States, and would make us look like silly fools in the eyes of those being "negotiated" with, it is very irresponsible and mindless for a candidate for president to suggest. Don't think for a minute that Barack Obama is interested in revealing Islam as a dangerous religion and ideology as a result of the "talks" he would have us engage in.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 26, 2008
Patrick,
The ‘debate’ I suggest, and I think I say so, would be as much for the people of the West, including the US, as it would be for defining clearly the divisions between Western and Islamic civilizations.
Such a ‘debate’ may just help dispel from Western minds the delusion that tolerance of certain things (like Islam) will lead to reconciliation, rather than the weakening of our own values, and civilization.
Picking out certain examples of Islamic expression (like the current Iranian leadership), and attributing such expression to the ranting of a fanatical madman detracts us from the issue – Islam.
Today, Western politicians (including Bush, McCain et al) fall all over themselves to extol the virtues of Islam, and since few people have ever read the Koran (never mind understood it), they simply go along for the ride.
You are right, my whole thesis is that no amount of tolerance will be reciprocated. The object is to get people in the West to understand that. Diverting our attention from the danger Islam poses to our way of life by focusing on side issues doesn’t strengthen our resolve – it weakens it. Our politicians simply refuse to acknowledge who or what our enemy is – Islam itself. In fact, they even ‘threaten’ those of us who raise the issue – hence the amount of people who are prosecuted in the West for even quoting from the Koran (or flushing a Koran down the toilet, or using one for target practice).
Not talking to Iran will simply have no impact on the danger posed by Islam, and neither will talking to them.
And I do agree that Obama has no interest in exposing Islam for what it is – but neither does Bush, nor McCain, nor indeed almost every other Western politicians – except some in the Netherlands who are now in hiding for fear of their own lives, in their own country, as elected politicians of the people of that country.
And from what you say, it seems to me that the efforts our politicians have invested in detracting our attention from the real issue is working weonders. Everyone seems to be wringing their hands about what Obama may or may not say to the Iranians, rather than focusing on the real problem - what are we going to do about the danger Islam itself poses to our way of life!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 26, 2008
Patrick, perhaps some of the following quotes praising the virtues of Islam, followed by references from the Koran, will help clarify my position that there appears to be an attempt to mislead the American public about the true nature of Islam.
"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.”
The Koran 5:151: “Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers … their abode will be the fire ..”
“The Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion.”
The Koran 2:216: “Fighting is prescribed for you …” and verse 217 - “Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter ..”
The Koran 4:95: “Not equal are those believers who sit [at home] and receive no hurt, And those who strive and fight in the cause of God [Islam] with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and their persons …” [and see Koran 4:20]
The Koran 5:36: “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle … is: execution [beheading in Islam], or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.”
The Koran 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in God nor the last day [ie, in Islam] … (even if they are) of the People of the book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
“So it's a good time for people of these great faiths, Islam, Judaism and Christianity, to remember how much we have in common.”
“Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others.”
The Koran 2:90: “Miserable is the price for which they [the Jews] have sold their souls, in that they deny (the revelation) which God has sent down, in insolent envy that God of His grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases.”
The Koran 2:65: “And we all knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath [the Jews]: We said to them: ‘Be ye apes, Despised and rejected’.”
The Koran 5:65: “Those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some [the Jews who do not accept Islam] He transformed into apes and swine.”
The Koran 3:67: “Abraham was not a Jew Nor yet a Christian; but he was true in faith and bowed his will to God’s (which is Islam), and he joined not gods with God.” [see also Koran 2:132]
The Koran 5:19: “In blasphemy indeed are those who say that God is Christ the son of Mary.”
The Koran 5:16: “O People of the Book [Christians and Jews]! There hath come to you Our Apostle [the Prophet Mohammed], revealing to you much that ye Used to hide in the Book [the Bible], and passing over much (That is now unnecessary).” ie The Jews and Christians falsified the Scriptures.
The Koran 5:78: “Christ the son of Mary was no more than an Apostle” - and verse 80 – “Say: ‘O People of the Book! Exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), Trespassing beyond the truth, Nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, - who misled many, and strayed themselves from the even Way.” [ie, from Islam]
I could go on, of course, but perhaps these extracts give a flavor of the issue at stake.
By the way, the un-attributable quotes are from President Bush - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 27, 2008
Joseph,
I think you misunderstood me - I agree completely with your premise that Islam in and of itself is a dangerous and violent ideology, and that our leaders are utterly unconcerned and self-deluded by political correctness. I just don't think it's a good justification for Obama's desire to "talk" with Iran, because you and I both know that his intentions are not the same as yours. His desire to "talk" is another step in the political correctness game that seeks to ignore the actual problem. Like you said, "Not talking to Iran will simply have no impact on the danger posed by Islam, and neither will talking to them.". "Talking" will not not solve the problem, and "talking" when one of the parties is a PC pinhead like Barack Obama will do worse than nothing, it will make the United States looks foolish and stupid to the Islamic world.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 27, 2008
Patrick, I think we are entirely in agreement on everything except this – do you not think that what President Bush has said about Islam (my Comment 7) has already made the United States “look foolish and stupid to the Islamic world”?
The Prophet Mohammed said “war is deception”. It seems to me they didn’t have to work too hard on the “deception” part with this President – and yes, I agree that Obama is already caught on the hook (or was he caught in some Madras in Indonesia?)
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 27, 2008
Joseph,
Of course I think that what President Bush has said about Islam is not only ridiculous and self-deluded political correctness, but does indeed make the United States look weak and stupid on the world stage. I think taking the same position (which Obama will, and does) AND also entering into "talks" with terrorist states like Iran, Syria, et al, would be even worse. That our current president is an idiot doesn't make it any better that our potential next president is a bigger idiot.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 28, 2008
Patrick, I think we agree! It does not bode well for the West when we are left to choose the Leader of the Free World by reference to their ‘stupidity quotient’.
Until we get a ‘leader’ who recognizes that the Islamic terror we face (and have faced since even before Iran became an Islamic Republic) is a direct consequence of what is prescribed in the Koran, we really have no hope of dealing effectively with the threat.
Ironically though, although Obama may be even more susceptible to “deception” than Bush has been in respect of Islam, talking to Iran may give him more respect and credibility with America’s allies in Europe. In Europe generally, the United States is perceived as looking “foolish and silly” for refusing to talk to the Iranians.
I know it is not much of a comfort, but perhaps enhancing respect amongst friends in Europe would be preferable to concerning ourselves with how the United States is perceived in the “Islamic world”. Personally, I’d rather have credibility with those who share our values than those who are intent on destroying them (even if we may disagree on how to protect those values)!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | May 29, 2008