Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 4, 2009

OBAMA IN CAIRO.... Early on in his speech in Egypt this morning, President Obama set the tone: "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors."

And with that, the U.S. president, with the eyes of the region upon him, delivered a powerful speech that addressed head on some issues that some leaders may have been tempted to avoid. Indeed, Obama reminded his receptive audience(s) of some uncomfortable issues he no longer wants to see swept under the rug.

President Obama pledged on Thursday to "seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," imploring America and the Islamic world to drop their suspicions of one another and forge new alliances to confront violent extremism and heal religious divides.

In a speech at Cairo University, the president delivered a sweeping message that was forceful and at times scolding as he promoted democracy in Egypt, sent a warning to Israelis against building new settlements, and acknowledged that the United States had fallen short of its ideals, particularly in the Iraq war. [...]

"We have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek," he said. "A world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected." [...]

"I consider it part of my responsibility, as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear," Mr. Obama said. "But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire."

He strode onto the stage to loud applause and a standing ovation in the conference hall. He conceded that his speech came at "a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world."

But he sought to explain that he represented the new face of American leadership.

And explain he did. Obama explained his belief that the "sources of tension" between the United States and much of the Middle East much be addressed "squarely." He proceeded to list seven "specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together": Confronting "violent extremism in all of its forms," the situation between "Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world," the "rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons," the spread of democracy in the region, the importance of religious liberty, women's rights, and economic development and opportunity.

Let no one say the president ducked the hard questions.

I'll have more on the speech later today, but for now, it appears Obama was intent on establishing a new foundation for the relationship between the Middle East and the United States. It was a dramatic success.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

We can judge the success of the speech by the number of requests for birth certification ?

Posted by: FRP on June 4, 2009 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Cue wingnuts screeching about America-hating and appeasement in 3...2...

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

Premptive: Hey all you Neocons - Fuck Off- the adults are in charge now.
This is how you lead a country , by reason , not intimidation.
Osama is losing hearts and minds. And BTW Cheney , care to explain why Osama is still on the loose?

Posted by: John R on June 4, 2009 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

Please Mr President, back it up with action! The world is too often right when it mistrusts America's words. Please lead in proving that you mean what you say.

Posted by: richard.greenslade on June 4, 2009 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

[Comment removed by moderator]

Posted by: tehee on June 4, 2009 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

I can't wait until Cheney crawls out of his sewer and gives his rebuttle speech.

The sad part is that while most of americans will applaude the President's speech, the shrieking handful of right wing zealots froathing at the mouth over it will commandeer 99% of the media's attention.

Posted by: Saint Zak on June 4, 2009 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Okay okay okay ! I see that it is not so simple to rate a speech by the measurement diktats of the insane ...
Birth certification , TelePrompTer , avatar , socialistic devolution .
Sheesh ...

Posted by: FRP on June 4, 2009 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

The inanity of tehee's comment aside, I simply do not understand this crap about a teleprompter. All public persons read their speeches from something; they rarely, if ever, commit them to memory. A teleprompter is nothing more than a 21st century technology-enhanced version of reading a speech off pages of paper. Geez, people, get off the teleprompter bit. Reading a speech off a teleprompter doesn't imply that Obama didn't have any hand in writing it.

Posted by: msmolly on June 4, 2009 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: tehee on June 4, 2009 at 8:26 AM |

The stench of fear and jealousy on this one is palpable. As is its stupidity.

Posted by: DJ on June 4, 2009 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

The diatribes of wingnuts are nothing more than rantings, free of substance. I see them as stranded motorists on the road's shoulder, foundering about without a spare tire with which to replace their flattened ideology, pointing at drivers-by and raging at them with their fists in the air, and the drivers--some of whom would normally stop to help them with their own spare tire of reality--instead decide that it's just not worth it to engage them anymore, and they shake their head in a combination of disbelief and pity, continuing their drive (along with other engaged motorists) down the road of substantive discussion and debate.

Posted by: terraformer on June 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

@teehee:

Yeah, the "guy in Omaha" - official representative of the Muslim world - didn't get the message of Obama's speech days before he delivered it. Imagine that.

Schmuck.

Posted by: John S. on June 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

I confess to an extreme amount of ignorance when it comes to the tenets, practices and minutiae of various religions. Yes, I read quite a bit and the inevitable bits of info get absorbed. However, being an atheist the sheer magnitude of learning required to be versed in a world I find a bit ridiculous is both daunting and personally irrelevant. When it comes to reaching an accommodation with Islam I shudder to admit I share some of the antagonism and suspicion of those on the Right, yet for sometimes different reasons. Here is where I need educated and corrected if required. My impression of Islam is its adherents follow a crude and repugnant pattern of misogyny. Women are less than human in some ways. They can't drive, work, get an education, court and date men free of constraints men don't suffer doing the same, are subject to emotional and physical abuse sanctioned and accepted by their peers, spouses and clergy. I see Muslim women protest the West has these perceptions in error and actually women are respected and revered in their societies. Yet what I read and hear tells me otherwise. I read these practices are not truly part of Islam, rather perversions and deviations from the religion. Yet they persist and seemingly nothing is done to rein them in or end them. Now, why should free, progressive, democratic societies seek understanding with peoples determined and accepting of practices that disenfranchise fully 1/2 their citizens? These are nations saying "You will respect us, trade with us, treat us as equals and desist in your aggression. By the way, we'll continue to rape, kill, imprison and oppress our females and you can go to hell if you don't like it, it's none of your business." We subject many nations to sanctions and shunning for human rights abuses. Rarely do I see the State Department raising hell with Muslim nations for massive abuse of their entire female populations. Why should we beseech these coutries to coexist peacefully? Some clamor for us to intervene in Darfur for the misery inflicted there and maybe rightfully so. How is the misery and abuse so different suffered by women within the practice of Islam?

Posted by: steve duncan on June 4, 2009 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

The speech was a hit in Egypt. Very well done.

Posted by: Dody Gunawinata on June 4, 2009 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

My impression of Islam is its adherents follow a crude and repugnant pattern of misogyny.

You might ask yourself where you got that impression, and if those who conveyed it might have any bias or agenda.

Women are less than human in some ways. They can't drive, work, get an education, court and date men free of constraints men don't suffer doing the same, are subject to emotional and physical abuse sanctioned and accepted by their peers, spouses and clergy.

Funny, the women of Iraq didn't have those problems before the US invaded.

And that situation differs from the extremist forms of other fundametalist religions, including Mormonism and Christianity, exactly how?

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

steve duncan, that is a persistent peeve of my (very liberal) wife as well. like the righties, she deplored Obama's bow to the Saudi king, but for the reason that no one should bow, or show any kind of formal respect as equals, to any country where women cant, by law or by coercion, vote, drive, have equal property rights, rights over their own bodies and relationships, etc.

Posted by: zeitgeist on June 4, 2009 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

gregory -

true enough about Iraq, but that does not exonerate Islam. Saddam, until he decided that strategically rallying the Sunni might help him hold on, ran the country as a more or less secular state. the Baath party was more important than any particular religion per se.

the difference in your fundie and Mormon examples is that none of them have their own countries. in much of the middle east and N. Africa, the religion and the state are not structurally or officially separate - they have "constitutions" that expressly adopt Islam, Islamic teachings, or Islamic law. if the fundies got their hands on an entire country for longer than a few years with a leader more competent than W, I would expect the same problems would arise. fortunately, that has not been the case. yet.

Posted by: zeitgeist on June 4, 2009 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

if the fundies got their hands on an entire country for longer than a few years with a leader more competent than W, I would expect the same problems would arise.

Margaret Atwood thought the same way.

Yes, fundamentalist Islam is misogynistic, just like fundamentalist Christianity. The mistake is imagining that Islam is uniformly, or even predominately, fundamentalist -- it isn't. Egypt's government, for example, isn't fundamentalist -- it recognizes christianity and Judaism -- and while it's repressive, it's politically so, and often targets fundamentalist Islam for repression, far from being inspired by it. It expressly bans religious political parties, as well.

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

Ask a Copt how accepting Egypt's government really is.

The problem with Islamic extremism is that it has a choke-hold in many Islamic countries, within the populace as well as the government. One can't say the same with any other religious extremism.

Posted by: Skyler on June 4, 2009 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

The problem with Islamic extremism is that it has a choke-hold in many Islamic countries, within the populace as well as the government.

So, why are the CIA and the Mossad worsening that problem? The Mujahedin/Taleban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, all creatures of brilliant secret service strategies.

Posted by: SRW1 on June 4, 2009 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ask a Copt how accepting Egypt's government really is.

Better yet, why don't you tell us? Christians make up about 10% of Egypt's population, and Christian churches operate openly. Moreover, as I pointed out, Egypt -- which, again, has a repressive political system -- doesn't tolerate religious political parties.

If you want to insinuate that Egypt's government is in the thrall of Islamic extr0emism, you'd better be prepared to back that statement up.

The problem with Islamic extremism is that it has a choke-hold in many Islamic countries, within the populace as well as the government. One can't say the same with any other religious extremism.

Not that the religious right in the US hasn't been trying for decades.

Here's a thought exercise for you: List the countries where Islamic extremism has a "choke hold" on the government and / or the populace. Then list the countries where Islam is the predominant religion. Compare the two.

I suspect your list of countries you believe where Islamic extremism has a "choke hold" on the government and / or the populace will be ... interesting. Which again raises the question, where did you get that impression -- or more accurately, who gave it to you?

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

If you want to insinuate that Egypt's government is in the thrall of Islamic extr0emism, you'd better be prepared to back that statement up.

I didn't insinuate that at all. I'm simply pointing out that you're belief that Egypt's government is some sort of beacon of hope is wrong.

Egypt's treatment of the Copts is well known. If you haven't heard about their treatment of them, then you really haven't studied much on Egypt.

Egypt's government is a secular dictatorship, which panders to the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of every other religious group in the country in an effort to keep power.

The sad thing is, as bad as the secular dictatorship that is the government now, it will only get worse if the Muslim Brotherhood or some other Islamic extremist group takes over.

Posted by: Skyler on June 4, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Let no one say the president ducked the hard questions.
AIPAC? Neocons? One-sided support? Only Pat Buchanan has the courage, not wimpy.

Posted by: Luther on June 4, 2009 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Ask a Copt how accepting Egypt's government really is.

Better yet, why don't you tell us? Christians make up about 10% of Egypt's population, and Christian churches operate openly.
Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Press Club hosted the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) release of their 2009 Annual Report on May 1, 2009. The Commission was established ten years ago to “document serious abuses of freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief around the world.” The commission identifies thirteen countries as “countries of particular concern” under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act and places several other countries with substantial violations on the USCIRF Watch List. The commission documents these abuses and prescribes country specific US policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

In the 2009 Report, Egypt is placed on the USCIRF Watch List due to, “serious problems of discrimination, intolerance, and other human rights violations against members of religious minorities, as well as non-conforming Muslims, {which} remain widespread in Egypt.”

The report cites acts of violence and arson by Islamists against the Coptic Christian community, which in only very few cases have perpetrators been arrested or convicted. Copts also face defacto discrimination, unfair regulations regarding the establishment and repair of churches, persecution of converts to Christianity, and a lack of adequate representation in government, higher military ranks, and in universities. Currently there is only one Christian governor out of twenty-eight, one elected Coptic member of parliament out of 454, and no known Christian university presidents or deans. Additionally there are over 100 applications to build new churches that are pending, most of which were submitted for presidential approval more than five years ago.

The USCIRF Report also discusses issues of religious discrimination in regards to Baha’is and Jews. The Baha’i community has been banned in Egypt since 1960 under Presidential Decree. The identity of Baha’is are known to the state security services and are subject to surveillance and harassment. There have been acts of violence carried out against the Baha’i community including attacks of arson on Baha’i homes by Muslim villagers in Sohag. In April 2009, the Ministry of the Interior lifted the ban on the ability for Baha’is to receive government issued documents such as identification cards, however, it is not yet clear if the decree has been implemented in practice, and if Baha’is have been able to secure official documents. In regards to the dwindling Jewish population, anti-Semitic messages are often transmitted through state controlled and semi-official media, in cartoons, in a 24 part series on “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and in the education system.

Posted by: steve duncan on June 4, 2009 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

I'm simply pointing out that you're belief that Egypt's government is some sort of beacon of hope is wrong.

What belief that "Egypt's government is some sort of beacon of hope"? I acknowledged that Egypt is politically repressive -- but, it's secular, doesn't tolerate religious political parties of any kind, and officially recognizes Christianity and Judaism.

Egypt's treatment of the Copts is well known.

Then it ought to be easy to cite an example, hm?

Egypt's government is a secular dictatorship

As I said -- thus forming a counterargument to your visions of Islamic extremists controlling governments.

which panders to the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of every other religious group in the country in an effort to keep power.

How, exactly, does it do that?

And even if it "panders" -- as, say, the Republicans do to right-wing Christian fundamentalists -- the fact remains that Egypt, like Turkey and Indoneisa, just to name two, is a predominately Islamic nation run by a secular government. Ominously implying that Islamic extremists are running the show in Egypt isn't good enough -- put up or shut up.

as bad as the secular dictatorship that is the government now, it will only get worse if the Muslim Brotherhood or some other Islamic extremist group takes over

No doubt the secular government realizes this fact, which is why it represses Islamic extremists, among others.

Now, can you challenge the accuracy of the facts I cited, or are you merely building straw men because my example doesn't fit your ominous mutterings about pervasive Islamic extremism?

Steve Duncan, no one is claiming Egypt as a model of religious tolerance, but even the report you cited noted the existence of a Coptic Christian governor and member of the legislature. You wouldn't expect such a situation in Taliban-run Afghanistan.

Certainly Egypt should do more to stamp out discrimination, but the fact that Egypt isn't living up to its official policy of tolerance is a far cry from an official policy of intolerance such as is found when a country is actually run by islamic extremists such as the Taliban.

Again, the point is not to hold up Egypt as a model of religious tolerance, but to suggest that the paranoid vision of the international Islamic extremist conspiracy is hogwash.

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Then it ought to be easy to cite an example, hm?

Duncan did it for me.

How, exactly, does it do that?

A Copt Christian can become a Muslim without a problem. A Muslim cannot become a Christian without significant legal hurdles. Of course, most can't meet those hurdles and they end up in prison.

The government has done little to stop the Muslim Brotherhood's attacks on Copts and Jews. Again, see the UN report, or Google it.

The government knows it can't punish or stop its restive Muslim extremist population too much or it will lose power.

Ominously implying that Islamic extremists are running the show in Egypt isn't good enough -- put up or shut up.

So who runs the show in Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Iran? Syria? Algeria? Kuwait? UAE? Oman?Certainly not enlightened secular governments. They are either run by Islamic extremists or dictators who rule via Sharia law.

And Islamic extremist parties are on the rise in places like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt. The tide is certainly not turning towards any sort of enlightened governments in the Muslim world, especially the Arab Middle East.

Posted by: Skyler on June 4, 2009 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

And Islamic extremist parties are on the rise in places like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt.

I'd say you might want to go back and read up a little on the developments in Turkey in recent years before you slander that country so casually.

This isn't to say that everything is hunky-dory in Turkey, but the country has certainly being moving in the right direction.

Posted by: SRW1 on June 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Duncan did it for me.

And not very helpfully to your point, I might add.

A Muslim cannot become a Christian without significant legal hurdles.

So? That's hardly evidence that radical Islam holds sway there.

The government has done little to stop the Muslim Brotherhood's attacks on Copts and Jews. Again, see the UN report, or Google it.

Still not providing sources, eh? Given what I've wondered about where you're getting your impressions, why do I suspect that you've heard about this UN report second hand?

The government knows it can't punish or stop its restive Muslim extremist population too much or it will lose power.

Except, you know, by outlawing and persecuting Islamist political parties. Sheesh.

So who runs the show in Saudi Arabia?

Shorter Skyler: OK, I concede I was talking out of my ass when I claimed that radical Islam ruled the entire Muslim world.

As for Saudi Arabia itself, right there you make the mistake of assuming that Islam is some monolithic theocracy -- for all their flaws, the entrenched rulers of Saudi Arabia and, say, bin Laden's al Qaeda are mortal enemies, you dimwit.

Iran?

Shiite fundamentalists, of course -- but curiously, women hold significant political power there, are educated and can work. They have less power now than under the Shah -- for which, of course, we can once again thank American meddling -- but the Iranian government aren't the Taliban aren't the Saudis. "Islamic extremists" is going kind of far for a government and nation that have prospered in the last 30 years, don't you think?

Certainly not enlightened secular governments. They are either run by Islamic extremists or dictators who rule via Sharia law. And Islamic extremist parties are on the rise blah blah blah

Look, it's clear by no that you don't want to let go of your paranoid fantasies of a monolithic international Islamic extremist conspiracy, but the fact is that, surprise surprise, there are all kinds of Islamic nations with all kinds of governments, many of whom don't agree with each other and have competing agendas. You made an over-bread and inaccurate statement, which happens, but your refusal to acknowledge the countervailing facts simply won't do in good faith debate.

And claiming "And Islamic extremist parties are on the rise in places like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt" -- the latter of which is pure bullshit, of course, as Egypt outlaws religious parties -- hardly covers up -- and in fact implictly recognizes -- the fact that those countries -- among others! -- have secular, not Islamic, government. I haven't even mentioned Libya, which again has a military dictator, but hardly an Islamist theorcracy.

I've said it before, but you need to seriously question where you got your impressions, and why they want you to be afraid of Muslims.

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory - you set up so many strawmen that it is difficult if not to engage in any sort of discourse with you.

For example:

Look, it's clear by no that you don't want to let go of your paranoid fantasies of a monolithic international Islamic extremist conspiracy

I never said that.

I've said it before, but you need to seriously question where you got your impressions, and why they want you to be afraid of Muslims.

I never said that.

Shiite fundamentalists, of course -- but curiously, women hold significant political power there, are educated and can work.

Curiously, women who are raped cannot expect justice unless she can provide three eyewitnesses to the attack.

Curiously, women can be beaten by their husbands and the husbands cannot be charged with a crime.

Curiously, homosexuals are beaten and in many cases executed if found in the company of their partners.

Yes, sounds real good over there.

As for Saudi Arabia itself, right there you make the mistake of assuming that Islam is some monolithic theocracy -- for all their flaws, the entrenched rulers of Saudi Arabia and, say, bin Laden's al Qaeda are mortal enemies, you dimwit.

I never said that, either. I clearly stated there are secular dictatorships and Islamic extremist governments with few other types of government in between. No words about "monolithic" anything - you added that.

And since when is all Islamic extremism centered around Bin Laden? Please understand that the Saudi royal family has instituted Sharia law. Please understand the Saudi royal family condones the export of Wahabbism via Saudi madrassas. I could care less if Bin Laden and the Saudi royal family are "mortal enemies." They are only mortal enemies because Bin Laden wants to topple them from power. That doesn't stop both of them from believing in Islamic extremism.

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood simply their candidates as independents. Those candidates now compose almost 20% of the parliament.

Pakistan does not outlaw religious parties. Neither does Turkey.

Stop with the strawmen. Start thinking.

Posted by: Skyler on June 4, 2009 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

you set up so many strawmen that it is difficult if not to engage in any sort of discourse with you.

Oh, that's rich, Skyler!

Look, it's clear by no that you don't want to let go of your paranoid fantasies of a monolithic international Islamic extremist conspiracy
I never said that.

No, you didn't use those exact words. It's still clear by now that you don't want to let go of your paranoid fantasies of a monolithic international Islamic extremist conspiracy.

I've said it before, but you need to seriously question where you got your impressions, and why they want you to be afraid of Muslims.
I never said that.

You said you had an impression of conditions in the muslim world that you have been shown, time and again in this thread, to be inaccurate.

I've said it before, but you need to seriously question where you got your impressions, and why they want you to be afraid of Muslims.

I particularly enjoyed your following your denial of paranoia about Muslim extremism with -- yes! -- more paranoia about Muslim extremism!

As for your three "curiouslys," they don't disprove my statement: women hold significant political power in Iran, are educated and can work. Do they enjoy what we in the US would recognize as equal rights? Of course not, and I'm not saying it's "good over there" -- that's your straw man. A straw man you erect because you can't disprove my contention, which undercuts your claims about the so-called "extremist" government in Iran.

I clearly stated there are secular dictatorships and Islamic extremist governments with few other types of government in between.

Which undercuts your paranoid claims about the influence of radical islam in Muslim-dominated societies.

since when is all Islamic extremism centered around Bin Laden?

Since never -- that's the point, jackass. Muslims have the same rivalries, competing political ambitions, and conflicting agendas as anyone else --

Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood simply their candidates as independents. Those candidates now compose almost 20% of the parliament.

Prove it.

And even if so, so what? 20% of Parliament? Thanks for proving that radical Islamists fail to compete strongly in Egyptian polity.

Pakistan does not outlaw religious parties. Neither does Turkey.

And why should they? Turkey, in particular, has an expressly secular constitution, and you'll note that Musharraf fell in part because of protests against his offenses against the civil justice system.

Again, it simply isn't true that Islamist extremists dominate the political process in either of those countries.

And you haven't even addressed Libya, Indonesia, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Malaysia, Tunisia, and so on.

Would extremist elements of Islam like to be the dominant political force in the Muslim world? Of course. Do they wield disturbing amounts of influence in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Of course. But are they even capable of wielding the kind of influence you fret about, let alone do they actually do so? You're utterly failed to establish the point.

I've said it before, but you need to seriously question where you got your impressions, and why they want you to be afraid of Muslims.

Start thinking.

Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

which undercuts your claims about the so-called "extremist" government in Iran.

Awesome. So you are on record that the government in Iran is not extremist.

Good to know.

I'm sure all the oppressed women, gays, Christians and those who want freedom to choose their government agree.

Pakistan does not outlaw religious parties. Neither does Turkey.

Actually, I got that wrong. Both countries do allow religious parties. Sorry about that.

And you haven't even addressed Libya, Indonesia, Kosovo, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Malaysia, Tunisia, and so on.

Really? I have to address each and every one? I made a pretty strong argument with the countries in the Middle East, as well as Iran and Afghanistan. But since you think the Mullahs in Iran are not extreme, I doubt anyone is to you.

Prove it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202368.html

Quote from article:

The entire Brotherhood bloc, 20 percent of parliament, walked out.

Seriously, are you too stupid and lazy to look this up on your own? Do the Mullahs allow Google where you live? Either you are intentionall obtuse or you're a one stupid bastard.

Lastly, exactly what is Islamic extremism? I'd love to hear what you think it is. So would all the gays, women and oppressed in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.

Posted by: Skyler on June 4, 2009 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

It seems as if there will be some change in US's policies with Muslim world, but how US wants to reach peace: article about Houssein Obama speech

Posted by: Rachid on June 5, 2009 at 4:55 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly