Barack Obama extends his hand to Islam's despots

Good article. I'd like to second what David Gardiner says below, and what Kiran says. This is either extreme naivety from the President or a dangerous game.

This kind of flattery will be interpreted as weakness in the eyes of the enemy (and Islam mandates imperialism). As Osama Bin Laden said: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse".

The weak horse is what is known as a "useful idiot", placidly assisting the spread of Islam further and further across the Western world.

why is everyone trying to accommodate the muslims? all muslims want is for the whole world to convert. so, inorder to get their own way they think its ok tokick up a fuss. i have seen more and more women wearing the hijab, the worst part is they look down their nose at women who dont. it doesnt say anywhere in their religious book they have to cover up-that much!

Amir Taheri wrote an informative
article rich in facts. But, it's short on balance, fairness and objective intellecualism. Biggest drawback or misssing point in analysis of speech of this kind, is identification.
This means mentioning one right thing a writer, speaker or target of criticism did--just one thing or more, for balance,
cfairness or objectivity.

Here, what Taheri mistook for weakness in Obama's speech is its strength. Obama criticized
what Muslim extremists have done
or have been doing, but singled
out Islam for praise for early
contributions to science. We will get to that.

I watched the speech early
Thursday morning last week, but
missed the first commentary
opportunity later same day
under Telegragh View's June 4
"A masterly speech from Obama,
but who's listening?" because of
of a hectic schedule. Then one
was posted yesterday, it bounced
and didn't get through. But, the
contents of the intended commentary message remained
unchanged.

But, before we get to the concept of identification in
more details, the greatest
strength in Obama's speech
comes by way of credibility.
Credibility is that attribute
of greater knowledge, trust and
authority a speaker, writer or
anybody engaged in any mission
or assignment commands by way
of profound learning, education,
experience, background or
upbringing. This issue
indirectly came up when the
subject of Obama's Cairo speech
to Muslims came up in Fareed
Zakaria's CNN's "Global Square
Forum" last Sunday. Zakaria--
a Newsweek columnist and CNN's
contributor, analyst and talk-
show host who grew up in
Pakistan before coming to the
United States, knows a lot about
Muslims and Islam. He pointed out Obama connection to Islam
through his heritage, got him
some trust among his audience.
His middle name, Hussein, which
his father gave him, is Muslim.
Obama's father hails from a
Muslim family and community in
Kenya. Obama has American-based
relations who are Muslims. Though raised a Christian, Obama grew up as child in Muslim
Indonesia, and has many Muslim
friends, knows Muslim traditions
and demonstrates considerable
Islamic sensibiities.

So, credibility helped Obama a
lot in his speech. He even
greeted his audience in Muslim
Arabic--conveying peace. Obama
went further in quotating from
Koran where virtues of kindness and peacemaking are encouraged and killing of the kind perpetrated by forces of violent, militant Jihadism are
ccondemned. He drew inspiration
and examples, also from the
Bible and Talmud to reconcile
the Abrahamic religions of
Christianity, Islam and Judaism
that came from the source, but
scarcely found no accommodation
for one another.

But, the irony is that the Obama's speech Tahieri denounced
was praised by even Obama's
die-hard Republican critics.
In article written by James
Nicholls in the Bloomberg News,
June 5 online edition, Senator
Richard Lugar (R-Indiana),
former Republican chairman of
Senate Foreign Relations
Committee--one of the foremost foreign policy experts in the
United States, praised the
speech, also, dismissing critics
who claimed the speech was
apologetic. Obama went further
than any other Western or American leader in bold and
comprehensive proposals for
peace in the Middle East and
improvement or normalization in
American-Muslim world relations.

Obama acknowledged Israel as an
ally, but denounced and rejected
establishment and building of
new settlements in violation of
existing agreements; claiming
they are obstacles to peace. He offered an olive branch to Iran, Hamas and other militant adversarial nations and entities to join hands in confronting existing problems, and to reject violent extremism in the process. Obama singled out and condemned killing of innocent civilians--men, women and children; including Muslsims, by militant, Islamiic extremists.

This is one of the portion of the speech that drew one of the most applause. This is
because, Egpyt where the speech
was delivered had contended with
violent, Muslim extremists,
using enormous resources to
contain their activities that
have resulted in carnage, thereby forcing most of them to flee the country--many to the remote Afghanistan-Pakistan, border; along with anarchist,
failed, Islamic Somalia and other havens. But, now concerted, multinational efforts are underway to deny these militant, extremist Jihadists these havens they use to propagate hate and evil religionism.

Obama struck the right note when he praised Islam for introducing some of the ideas that propelled science, architecture, arts, engineering and civilization. I mentioned some of these Islamic innovations in my previous commentaries. But, Islam to a greater degree abamboned these ideas and focused on idealistic rewards of 72 virgins in extraterrestrial kingdoms for
those engaged in religious,
fanatical catastrophism, which
became a misrepresentation of
Jihadism that centers self-
defense in promotion or defense
of Islam. A combination of praise for the right things and
denunciation for the wrong things is driven by the
concept of identification. It
removes elements of bias,
prejudice and misconceptions.
It promotes and conveys balance,
neutrality, fairness and
objectivity. Obama's speech has
all of them and received praise
by some of the eminent scholars,
dignitaries I cited. But,
Taheri's article lacks
identification which undermines
his credibility, in spite of
the aura of intellectualism it
conveyed.

Finally, Obama's speech may be
resonating in the Muslim world.
The latest news report
I received from MSNBC suggests
that the leading reform
candidate who embraces talks and
improving ties with Washington
and the Obama administration is
leading in the polls in the race
for the presidency. Lebanon
rejected militant, violent
extremism in latest election.
One speech alone can't transform
the world. But, it can serve as
a catalyst for transformation.
Igonikon Jack, USA

some ideas good but some of them doesnot consider islam but it see muslims

I am so fearfull of this president, I feel like he is doing crazy stuff, and will hurt us in the long run. We have never has such a scarey president in the United States before, what has happened to America, are people blind to this man. We had better be very affraid and pray everyday he does not do anymore to hurt us.

Terry
on June 07, 2009
at 07:23 PM

I so agree with your points about the elected dictatorships of what poeple think of as Democracy.

It was Obama�s turn as Presdient to appease the people and make them think something was going to be �different�.

Well, if Islamists continue to physically threaten the USA and Europe ...I stress , physically, not theologically or intellectually, it would be very stupid to attack Iran even if they are financing the terror (which they have done in the past)

The best way to stop this is to cut the financial umbilicals and by that I mean , the sooner The West can stop using Arab and Iranian oil the better.

What will any of those countries have if noone buys their oil ?

In fact , without Western technology and 3rd world slave labour , they cannot even extract it themselves !

Hit them financially and see their behaviour change.

Either Obama is extraordinarily naive or he is playing a very dangerous game. If you give ground to extremists and terrorists they will regard this as a sign of weakness.If he is acting in this way and saying these things because he really believes them then the western world is in deep trouble.

Obama was educated in a muslim public school. He was given a certificate of award for his memorization of the Koran as a young boy. He definitely has sympathies toward islam.
He was also raised in his grandparents' household with a strong belief in marxist socialism.
What I see in Obama is a conflict between his socialist roots and his muslim roots. Liberals are hoping the marxist/socialist roots win out, while muslims hope the muslim roots take precidence.
I think that it means the rest of us will lose out on this one. I hope and expect he will be a one-termer.

Obama is a typical liberal fool. He thinks that by ingratiating himself with muslims, by being deaf blind and dumb to evils and injustices done in the name of islam, he can exert some influence over them. His failure to unequivocally berate those who engage in such backwardness shows only his liberal cowardice and naivete.

What he should be doing is trying to assist muslims fighting against the oppression of democracy and women: and support those muslims advancing tolerance and understanding to non muslims and progressive socially liberal policies.

Interestingg that right through his campaign neither he nor the left wing media ever raised these issues. I wonder if he would be the president if the truth was known. Lets face America is now econimically and poitically bankrupt.

There is a British precedent for the BO phenomenon. His name was Neville Chamberlain.

Obama is a non-smart guy. He believes that all the ills in this world can be settles by wishy-washy Obamaspeak. He is incapable of ACTION as opposed to getting elected.

Plato said a good few years ago that ' men who are elected to office prove only one thing. They are not fit to serve because the cunning required to achieve power means a corresponding inability to act for the common good.'

Obama is the perfect example of this.
But he is the President of the USA and accordingly demands attention if not respect.

He will ultimately prove disastrous to peace.

PS.... excellent article Mr Taheri. I would like to read more of your writings. But where??????

There is one essential similarity between Obama's Western liberalism and Bin Laden's Islamism. Both are predicated on diktats, Sharia law and humanist 'rights' respectively. Nobody has ever been allowed to vote for either of these.

Western 'democracy' amounts to electing dictators for periods of five years, who spend their time acting in blatant defiance of the democratic majority's demands on issues such as (in Britain's case) the Lisbon Treaty, immigration, the European Human Rights Act, globalisation, etc.

It's time everyone recognised ideological liberalism and theological Islamism as two sides of exactly the same coin; dictatorship.

We, the people, need to replace both these dysfunctional examples of dictatorship with democratism, the rule of the democratic majority, in every institution, at all times and in all matters.

Action this day!

Mr Amir is yet another traitor in the hands of foreign forces. It is very unfortunate that while even in Africa everyone recognises the need for change and no one has demonstrated this ability than Barak Obama, Mr Amir is still palying the drums of the likes of George Bush and other previous failed policies. People like Mr Taheri is too blind to realise that negotiation is not necesarily equal to partnership. These two countries have been in no communications as a result of scare mongering by people like Mr Taheri. Well these tricks don't work any more. Unlike the wish of Isreal, the Saudi Arabia and many Iranis traitors outside, The US and Iran need each other more than ever before. I wish both of them best of luck in resolving their diffrences for the sake of peace in the region.

Great article Amir , although I think you are being unduly harsh on Obama , the man.

The truth is that just about every non-Muslim in " The West" is scared of Islam.

The beheading videos , suicide bombings and threats have worked.

Just like when the IRA blew up The City , financial heartland of the Uk ; capitulation followed. Here it�s decapatitation which works even better...

You rightly point out that just like Christians, Muslims come in all shapes and sizes.

I wish I knew the anwers , but I don�t.

What I do know is that we must stand up to extremism and threats

But we must also genuinely address grievances and inequalities.

All of this bedlam stems from the Palestinian situation and that started in the 1970s.

Yasser Arafat and co started the highjacking and gradually it has got more extreme

Sort out the Palestinians and these extremists will be diempowered

Why are these people living in poverty and hopelessness ?

Turkey anyone ?

This Amir chap has twisted virtually everything Obama said. In fact he has recast an article written by a Jewish woman and published yesterday.
Strange bedfellows. Perhaps both fear that if Obama builds a bridge between the US and moderate Muslims he will remove their raison d'etre. Let's hope he succeeds. And let's pray some redneck renegade doesn't stop him.

Realist
"Mr Chamberlain at Munich now has a successor. Facing dictators is once again confined to appeasement. Mr Obama will learn the hard way that it does not pay."

Rhys Jaggar
"Now I grew up at a time when it was an article of faith that the IRA were terrorists who you could never talk to. Miraculously, a generation of talking, initiated by Conservative Ministers and continued by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, brought an end to violence, the decommissioning of guns and joint power sharing in Northern Ireland. It's not perfect, problems still remain, but it's a pretty normal place to visit now, I tell you......so why shouldn't President Obama start that sort of dialogue, in the full knowledge that it may take another 5 Presidential terms for peace to be achieved, if not 25?"

No - it's an armistice for a number of years.

Both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland murdered for political gain. That's terrorism. Women are maltreated by the state in some countries. That's terrorism. Any attempt to 'understand' such activities is appeasement and we all know what that leads to.

"Hey North Korea, either you dismantle your nuclear weapons this minute or we'll bomb you to the Stone Age ! And Iran, stop developing yours right now or we'll ... we'll ... "

Think that will work? There is no credible threat vis-a-vis Iran, because the West can't afford another Iraq and the effect that would have on the sympathies of average Muslims from Iraq to Palestine to Pakistan to Indonesia.

On the other hand, reaching out respectfully to mainstream Muslim citizens (Obama really wasn't speaking to the dictators but going over their heads to the people), offering to help instead of retard Iran's economic development in exchange for a reasonable, self-interested approach to the nuclear issue, and making a serious, honest effort to fix Israel/Palestine might just marginalize the extremists.

That's the pragmatic argument. Just by the way, ordinary Muslims, like all people, deserve to be spoken to respectfully anyway. No need to mention that they developed algeba, and optics, and SOAP, and ...

Call it "appeasment". It may fail, and we end up in something bigger than WWII. (Are you going to volunteer for D-day in the Gulf?) If war is going to happen, it's going to happen. Nothing will be lost by trying something else first.

Amir taheri is right and on the ball,Obama's sweeping overgeneralisations are dangerous precedents:

Algebra: One needs to appreciate the influence of Indian subcontinent on the course of sciences and intellect of renaissance. The Indian subcontinent export of the 'mastery of mathematics' through Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Mo'ayyeduddin Urdi, and Ibn al-Shatir helped like a catalyst to expedite the imminent dawn of reason-based enlightenment in Baghdad and Cordoba. That was cut short in its infancy by the intervention of dogmatic idea that any knowledge outside the book of God is irrelevant. Reason, logic, and rationalism were sacrificed at the altar of dogma and incoherence of philosophy. The truth about indifference towards great thinkers within Islamic Diaspora is chilling.

The Indian numerals and the positional number system were introduced to the Islamic civilization by Al-Khwarizmi. Al-Khwarizmi's book on arithmetic synthesized Greek and Hindu knowledge and also contained his own fundamental contribution to mathematics and science including an explanation of the use of zero. It was only centuries later, in the 12th century, that the Indian numeral system was introduced to the Western world through Latin translations of his Arithmetic.


Hellenistic mathematician Diophantus has traditionally been known as the "father of algebra" but in all honesty Al-Khwarizmi, who founded the discipline of al-jabr, definitely deserves the title instead. Arab and Muslim mathematicians developed algebraic methods to a much higher degree of sophistication. Although Diophantus and the Babylonians used mostly special ad hoc methods to solve equations, Al-Khowarazmi was the first to solve equations using general methods.

The paradox is that most of these philosophers live only as the 'golden intellectuals' referenced and quoted. They are part of the 'intellectual tour de force of the faith' but little do the faithful realise that it was their 'freedom of mind that made them big.' Later when their books and philosophies were considered incoherent with the main faith of Islam, the terminal decline of thought started. When Puritanism took over, academia suffered. Disconnect between science philosophy and religion was the cause of intellectual decline. Mosques turned introversion into an art form. Doctrine and puritanical existence became the obsession; physics, chemistry, science, mathematics were considered superfluous to the requirement of the nation. Whereas in the case of Church, despite the biggest of resistance from papal figures and fundamentalist doctrines, monasteries became centres of excellence.



http://iqballatif.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/09/2795949-a-recitation-of-the-history-of-human-thought-it-is-fortunately-collective-and-secular

Role of Greece, China, India and pre-Islamic Persia:Muslims have not come out of emptiness; they incorporate values of spirit and civilisations of that of Pharaohs, Hellenistic and Zoroaster; it is a combination of all these that helped a great era of renaissance that was nipped in the bud. The spirit of Greek science, literature and philosophy fell into the hands of Muslims. With the conquest of Persia, the treasure chest of knowledge of old twin civilisations�Byzantines and the Sassanids�had fallen in the hands of the Arab armies. Instead of burning them, they made these treasures the mainstay of their governance. In the spring of 633 CE, a grandson of Khosrau called Yezdegerd, ascended the throne, and in that same year the first Arab squadrons made their first raids into Persian territory. It is believed that Greco-Rome is the origin of civilization, but it was the Iranian civilization that was much older than that of Rome and was at par with Greece in its richness, and that Iran made no less contribution to the historical and cultural progress of the entire world. It was the Arabs' integration of cradles of eastern civilisations that spewed elite luminaries responsible for the enlightenment of an era. This from Saadi could not have come from intellectual vacuum of minds; it was the embodiment of thousand of years of rich culture with rationalist and logical Hellenistic thoughts combined with the liberty to seek new frontiers of knowledge that led Saadi to say:

"The sons of Adam are limbs of one another having been created of one essence. When the calamity of time afflicts one limb, the other limbs cannot remain at rest."

Islam's vanished golden era cannot be treated in an academic vacuum.
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/12/6893

So Obama really believes that he can change the way that the islamists think. I'm not very educated in this respect, but i would say, turn your attention to something that has a chance. As the Americans say, this is a loser

Thank you Mr Taheri for trashing President Obama. He's a stupid man for reaching out to muslims. George Bush was a tremendous success. Bring him back I say.

You poor fools who believe in the Obama machine will be the most surprised when his lack of knowledge and experience bring untold hardships to both his country and the rest of the world.

"negative stereotypes of Islam"

Does that mean the one about 9/11 and the ideology it was based on?

I'm afraid the "negative stereotype" was initiated, created and codified by Mohammed himself, when he went rampaging across Arabia forcing people to submit to Islam or die: on one occasion, massacring an entire Jewish tribe of 800 people, the Banu Qurazya.

"Mr Obama dropped words such as "terror" and "terrorism" from his vocabulary"

Because Muslims object to this - I suspect the vast majority of them. If Obama didn't confront it, he was merely being polite.
"Mr Obama may not know it, but his "Muslim world" is experiencing a civil war of ideas, in which movements for freedom and human rights are fighting despotic, fanatical and terrorist groups that use Islam as a fascist ideology"

Anecdotal platitudes. Lets take Britain as an example. What we have here is 4,000 Muslims under terrorist surveillance, and a surrounding community with shifty, dishonest, resentful attitudes as the basis for failing to address the sickness amongst them.

"The President refused to acknowledge the existence of the two camps, let alone take sides"

Because there aren't "two camps", citing the example evident in Britain. There's too much made of this platitudinous 'diversity in Islam' idea when Muslims do in fact all follow the same ideology, ideas, beliefs, and 1400 AD warlord leader.

I think insecurity is much of the basis for Muslim hostilities, based on the fact that Islam is substantially incompatible with how the modern world works. And instead of having the intelligence to consider this and reform and adjust their ideas, Muslims react with resentment and hostilities. This dynamic - simple as it is - I think explains much of the current problems. And it will not stop until Muslims learn to understand this; the focus of the entire world is on them and we are not going to allow backward Islamic ideas a place in our modern, developed, egalitarian society: not, that is, any more than a succession of wretched UK governments have already allowed.

I'm really tired of this 'be nice to Muslims' approach because it always means a) avoid the real issues and b) feel its our responsibility to do so while Muslims never initiate anything similar themselves.

Owl on June 06, 2009 at 09:54 PM

Many non-Muslim nations have a major problem with criminal Muslim gangs to varying degrees depending upon the percentage of Muslims in a nation. These criminal gangs are involved in women trafficking.

Where there are high percentages of Muslims, non-Muslim women are not safe. They are kidnapped, raped and then sold. In many cases, these women are sold to old rich Sheikhs or sent to prostitution dens in ME.

Unfortunately, many Muslims overtly support them. They think that it is a good way to terrorize and subsequently subjugate non-Muslims!

This illegal and immoral woman trafficking is in addition to other serious crimes.

If police take any action, then you can see the marches that Muslims are discriminated and riots!

Some samples of these have already been noticed in Britain with hardly three percent of Muslims. Imagine the state of affairs when it reaches about 14 percent as in India!
Regards,

Obama's strength is that, unlike many on the Right, he doesn't over-estimate the power of the US and the West impose their will and get their desired outcomes. That error led to the Iraq war. Similarly, the West could not stop India and Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. It can delay, but not stop, Iran from doing so. Bomb them and it may take an extra 5 years or 10 years, but they will get there. Meanwhile the bombing will have provoked all manner of backlash conseqences. What the West can do it try to reach a common understanding with other countries that an outcome which is more benefial for all parties is possible, i.e. a nuclear-free world. It's worth a try, because, really, there's nothing to lose.

There is no pleasing Mr. Taheri! Would he rather we went back to the facile arrogance of the Bush days? I agree that we need to see some action after the rhetoric. But Obama is trying to set the scene, especially to gain the confidence of both Israelis and Palestinians. Speaking of the injustice of occupation while at the same time having no time for those who deny the holocaust. By the way, if he wants to quibble about the number of Muslims in the US; well most would agree the accepted figure is between 5-8 million. Obama is allowed the figure of 7 million within that margin of error!

An eye-widening article, Mr Taheri. Has it occurred to you that Mr Obama was not being conciliatory or weak in his speech to 'the Muslim World' but that he meant every word he said? I am becoming very concerned about Mr Obama's actions -- his unnecessary and very deep bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, his giving Iran until December to stop its development of an A-bomb (by which time it will be created)and now this very ambiguous speech. Just what is he up to? What does he really want? I don't want to be a conspiracist but I'm becoming suspicious about his motives. Could he be lulling the West into a contented sleep until it's too late? Please tell me I'm wrong.

Amir Taheri: Thanks for a very well written article. Could have been more outspoken on barbaric treatment of women, minorities and pro-democratic leaders.

"the existence of the two camps"

Sorry! There are too many camps in some Islamic nations and Islam in general! In some cases, it is difficult to figure out what they want!

Islamic extremism and terrorism have driven a widening bridge between Muslims and non-Muslims. Overt and covert supporters are stoking fires. In secular democracies, these sections think subversion in every form is their religious duty. Amir Taheris' are an exception!

Fountainheads of the Islamic extremism and terrorism are Saudi Arabia ruled by House of Despots and Pakistan, a nation of multiple hatreds. Saudi Arabia's mullahs and Islamic scholars provide religious leadership and rich Sheikhs including rulers provide finance. Pakistan provides training place and foot soldiers!

The extremism in Pakistan has led to a strange situation, where some sections of Muslims hate other sections; many hate all non-Muslims and more! The list of hatreds is endless!

Barack Obama is ignoring these basic realities and speaking in vacuum! He ought to know that he can't change the realities by appeasement. His speeches are more like many American attorney Presidents like Bill Clinton. It is difficult to make out what they mean and intend to do!

To some extent, Jimmy Carter was speaking and acting in a similar fashion and ended up as a disaster!

Hope Barack Obama remembers Jimmy Carter's administration.
Regards,

I'm a little confused with the point about the hijab. Are you saying that the hijab only came into being in the 1970s? If so, that is entirely a lie. Adam Olearius wrote about women covering their faces in the 17th century.

You imagine that the US President is thoroughly briefed on cultural mores and the nature of the different aspects of Faith - such as the very different competing factions within Islam, some of which are decidedly hostile towards each other.

Obama had an opportunity to *divide and conquer* - and instead quite wrongly endorsed the concept of a single Muslim "family" across the world - playing right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and his tape broadcasts.

Nations do not deal with nations on the basis of this or that Faith being locally dominant. They deal with governments - hopefully ones which are not one and the same as Faith leadership to the inclusion of all else.

Obama should not make out Islam to an amorphous global thing, to be found in many locations at different strengths but essentially the same everywhere. Obama should talk about dealing not with a Faith, but with nation states and their leaderships, benign, impartial or hostile on a case by case basis.

To refer to Muslims globally is firstly to suggest there is a Christian bloc, and others, parallel to this concept, and / or that one dominates at the expense of another here or there.

I don't want a religion based world political order, but a pragmatic set of relationships based on finding ways to do business with each other for the common good - without any element of proselytising anyone.

070609-10:20

Kaveh The reason the Shah was against the hijab is that it is a symbol of slavery and oppression. It is a symbol of a primitive viewpoint and a tribal ownership of a woman. It is a symbol that she does not exist except in reference to others.She is not supposed to exist as an individual. Wherever women "cover" most do not have any choice at all about anything in their lives. The same places that require women to cover
have extremely high rates of child abuse ,woman abuse ,and high birth rates. The same places that require women to cover ignore honour killing, FGM, and child marriage. There is no country on earth where these things are common that is peaceful and prosperous.
Turkey is struggling with these isssues. Honour killing has been turned into forced suicide.
Supporting hijab at this time in history is like saying there is a "good" sort of slavery. There have already been honour kilings in the US and one in Canada for "bad hijab".
One has to come down on the side of modernism against the primitive.

Amir Taheri is my countryman and I know him well. Amir is a funny guy and says things that make you think seriously about his sanity. A few years ago Amir wrote an article that caused huge imbursement for a Canadian politician for falling for Amir and thinking that he is a responsible journalist. Amir wrote an article that was published in one of the Canadian papers and claimed that Iran had passed a law that Jews had to wear a yellow badge!
A few days later the Jewish MP of the Iranian parliament denied the news and strongly criticized Mr Taheri for writing such an article without checking with him the accuracy of the so called News! After all he is an MP and aware of everything going on in the Parliament.

Amir today in this article questions the accuracy of the number of the Muslims in the USA and believes that the president of the USA and his homeland security forces do not know how many Muslims live in the USA after 8 years of close watch on every single person who could be a Muslim Terrorist! This is why I say Amir is a funny man!

Amir's comment about Hijab stands in the face of facts and history and the principals of Islam which imposes Hijab! Amir was brought up in Iran and should have seen that even before the revolution of 1979 the majority of the Iranian women wore Jijab. Amir also has forgotten that during Reza Khan Pahlavi (the father of the last Shah of Iran) police was ordered to pull the Hijab off women head in the street which caused riots and many were killed.

But the funniest part of Amir's article is his remark about �Having abandoned President Bush's support for democratic movements in the Middle East ..�! Amir needs to look at the number of people in the political prisons of Saudi and Egypt and Jordon, three of the close allies of President Bush and see if the numbers declined or actually went up in the last 8 years! This is why I say Amir is a funny man!

Amir also makes another big mistake in this article maybe because he did not listen carefully to what Obama said! Saying that Obama �offered no support to those fighting for gender equality, independent trade unions and ethnic and religious minorities.�. Obama even specifically mentioned a few ethnic and religious minorities by name! Maybe Amir should watch the speech carefully before writing about it next time!

Amir - Obama isn't so stupid and aware that there are cracks in "Muslim world". His speech was designed to make these cracks wider, - and he did it skillfully. Today one can go to Wikipedia and learn in seconds who was who and who was first in medicine, algebra and navigation. While clarifying these trivia, at least millions of Muslims will be, for some short time, out of reach of their fundamentalist authorities, and thinking about something meaningful.
Obama said many lies and distortions, and sanitized Islam as ideology, in order to be better heard. But still he clearly puts humanism over ideology or religion - things that come first, respect and protection of human life, free thought, and free woman; 3 things depriving Islamist Mordor of its existential base. So well done Mr President.

I have to laugh when I hear the typically leftist alligation that USA is hated and loathed.

Well, my very naive friends, success always calls for envy. The list of envious is very long and starts from old eu to the third world.

It's human nature, when someone in your surroundings gets a promotion or lives a successful lifestyle, it rarely calls for admirations and praise. It's more envy and negativity.

Why USA should worry about a huge bunch of envious and losers is a mystery to me. Obama is cuddling a bunch of losers looking for free charity because of his messianic complex and because he's desperately looking for approval from just ANYBODY, including dictators.

Do you know someone that feels envious when he looks at Iran's "success"?

Obama is extending a freindly hand to all who care to have peaceful coexistence.
Hatred, fear and anger has lead us nowhere.
Such positive leadership is refreshing!
i hope our Arab and Israeli leaders will not ruin another opportunity to rise up to the challenge and create the peace we all want, with a facilitator that understands both sides.
Obama has expressed his sincere intentions, but we can't expect him to do everything for everyone as this and too many articles complain. It's now up to us and our leaders to assume the responsibility to deliver peace.
Usama - Palestinian fan of Obama

I don't think there's anything that anyone could say right now that will miraculously turn Muslim dictatorships into democracies overnight.

What Mr Obama is trying to do in the first six months of his Presidency is to build bridges without making huge commitments.

Is that a crime?

The USA was universally hated, not just in the Middle East, but in large parts of Europe too, for its abrasive, aggressive and dominating foreign policy under Bush. Mr Obama wishes to rein that in a bit.

Is that a crime?

Now if you are proposing an invasion of Saudi Arabia to impose democracy, I look forward to you making the case and building the coalition to do it! You may be challenged to find one........

I'm no supporter of the regime in Tehran, but perhaps if it's so universally hated in the Middle East, then a coalition of India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, the Gulf Emirates and Russia might like to sort them out? I'm not so sure they ARE so universally hated.......

Why does it always have to be America?? I've no doubt America will respond robustly in the light of Iran developing the capability to attack Israel with nuclear weapons and threatening to use it......not even the mad mullahs would launch a pre-emptive strike out of the blue. Of that I AM as totally sure as one can ever be in a mad, mad world......Mr bin Laden's lot might, but I don't think the mad Mullahs would.....

Now Mr bin Laden is apparently still alive and saying he hates Obama. I say apparently because there are many who believe he is dead but is 'kept alive' as a tool to justify military intervention by the West.......perhaps all these tapes were developed several years ago and are being leaked as and when for suitably nefarious purposes? There is even a video out there claiming that Benazir Bhutto was murdered for stating on air that bin Laden had been murdered........

Now I grew up at a time when it was an article of faith that the IRA were terrorists who you could never talk to. Miraculously, a generation of talking, initiated by Conservative Ministers and continued by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, brought an end to violence, the decommissioning of guns and joint power sharing in Northern Ireland. It's not perfect, problems still remain, but it's a pretty normal place to visit now, I tell you......so why shouldn't President Obama start that sort of dialogue, in the full knowledge that it may take another 5 Presidential terms for peace to be achieved, if not 25?

Mr Obama will have his limit before he resorts to hard US power. He just hasn't yet revealed what it is yet.

It's always those who don't go to war who glorify it in foreign lands.

Especially if they think that the enemy can't strike them in THEIR homeland........

Thing is: occasionally, they can......

Obama has a policy, but doesn't know it yet. He thinks that he's carving out a different policy than George Bush; in reality, his "enemy of my enemy must be a friend" pronouncements mask a drift into dangerous waters. When the friendly hand extended to despots--in Russia, in Iran, in the Middle East--is rudely lopped off, he will revert to policies much like his predecessor's. Call the Obama doctrine "George Bush by Process of Elimination."

Thank you, Amir. Mr. Obama and his staff thought that they could reduce the "wave of anti-Americanism" for the control of the Pakistani government and the civil war there that was forced by the U.S. on Pakistanis as a condition to give Pakistan $7.5 billion in U.S. aid. A retired ISI officer told that to CBS "60 Minutes" (May 31, 2009), and he called Pakistan's president Asif Zardari "a puppet of the U.S." And, of course, by stating flat out in Cairo that the U.S. is against "construction of Israeli settlements in West Bank, he sought to reduce the "wave of anti-Americanism" among Palestinians, Arabs and Iranians with conciliatory rhetoric. And -if successful- that would have been a counter-balance weight to even out the heavy anti-American sentiment that is boiling over now against the U.S. for its ongoing war in Central Asia.

Were the Arabs and the Iranians fooled. Of course not. The U.S. credibility in the Arab and Muslim countries is less than 5%, and that 5% are despots and officials that keep their Muslim population under a tight yoke of subservience and abject poverty. The Iranians threw out the pro-U.S. despot Shah Reza Pahlevi in 1979 in a quick anti-imperialist Muslim wave, but there are many Shah-like despots today in the Arab world -from Morocco to Iran - that are pampered and sustained in power with U.S. support. And their suppressed population will never expect any change for the better in their society to come from the U.S., because their regimes were designed and built by the U.S. to lock in their precious resources for U.S. consumption. And, surely, the Arabs and the Muslims were not waiting with open jaws to consume Obama's rhetoric with one gulp. They wanted deeds - not words, but they know now that the U.S. deeds will just keep percolating until Obama leaves office. Nikos Retsos retired professor

"Islam's Despots". Which ones is he refering to? Mubarak, Gadafi, Al-Asad, or one of the two Abdullah's? What do they have to do with Islam? Aren't those people who rule their populations by fear of arrest, torture of self or family also deserving of the name "terrorist".

Is this another news article using a title (Islam's Despots) which denigrates Islam but which actually has nothing to do with Islam?

Mr Chamberlain at Munich now has a successor. Facing dictators is once again confined to appeasement. Mr Obama will learn the hard way that it does not pay.

he extends his hand to despots because he's their peer. Time to convince this immature amateur that he's speaking on his behalf only