Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 520

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 18

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1244

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1442

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 306

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/cache.php on line 431

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/class.wp-dependencies.php on line 31

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/http.php on line 61

Warning: explode() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-content/plugins/bannage.php on line 15
Monokultur » Obama


Obama og den muslimske forfatning

Arabere, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Jihad, Muslimer, Obama, Terror, islam, muhammed — Drokles on August 15, 2014 at 1:33 pm

obama-honors-muslims-ap

Barak Hussein Obama under et billede af Abraham Lincoln, der befriede slaverne, taler for et kønsopdelt publikum i anledning af muslimernes fejring af sejren over de vantro.

Barak Obama udsendte en lykønskning til muslimernes Eid fest, som han mente “celebrates the common values that unite us in our humanity”. Førend han hilste muslimerne med et Allahu Akbar fortsatte Obama med et andet opsigtsvækkende udsagn

In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.

Den slags vinder Obama 72% af de muslimske vælgere i USA, men det efterlader de fleste andre med et mysterium: Givet USAs historie, hvad kan Obama dog mene? Eksperterne er uenige. Præsident for Den Katolske Liga Dr. Bill Donohue, mener at Hussein tager helt fejl, som han fortalte Conservative Tribune

“Muslims contributed nothing to the foundation of our country. It was mostly not Catholics or Jews, but who were protestant, were white, were male and, as far as I can tell, were heterosexual! Does that mean everyone else is excluded? No, it does not. And it doesn’t mean everyone else is a bad person. But to lie and say that Muslims were the ones who helped found this country- start naming them; start enumerating them. How did we all miss that in history? See, this kind of patronizing thing is a disgrace. [Obama] doesn’t want to be associated with the fact that it was Christians and the Judeo-Christian ethos that contributed to liberty in this country.”

Robert Spencer kommer derimod sin præsident til hjælp og nævner 5 muslimske bidrag til selve materien af USA: En svækket økonomi, Homeland Security, slavehandel, marinesoldater

og så selve opdagelsen af Amerika(erne)

This one predates the United States as a nation, but without it, the United States would not exist. Every schoolchild knows, or used to know, that in 1492 Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered America while searching for a new, westward sea route to Asia. But why was he searching for a new route to Asia? Because the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims in 1453 closed the trade routes to the East. This was devastating for European tradesmen, who had until then traveled to Asia for spices and other goods by land. Columbus’s voyage was trying to ease the plight of these merchants by bypassing the Muslims altogether and making it possible for Europeans to reach India by sea.

Så tak Allah for USA.

Et lille makabert billede af galskaben

Antisemitisme, Arabere, Muslimer, Muslimguf, Obama, Terror, islam — Drokles on August 9, 2014 at 3:39 am

Forleden henviste jeg til til historien om Pallywoods fine produktion Massakren ved Rafa. IDF havde bombet nogle terrorister, der skød raketter af udenfor en FN drevet skole. Ligene blev prompte trukket ind på skolens område og et barnelig blev tilsat for ekstra effekt. Og Obama så det og græd og fordømte Israel.

rafah_little_girl8

Men flere billeder dukkede op af sundhedspersonale i Gaza, der tilsyneladende forsøger at redde eller genoplive pigen.

rafah-girl3

Hvis pigen var død allerede da hun blev brugt som model genbruger sundhedspersonalet i endnu et stykke propaganda. Da sundhedspersonalets propaganda negerer gadeaktivisternes er det noget de gør per automatik.´

Omvendt, hvis pigen endnu ikke var død eller, hvis hun lige var død, da hun ankom til hospitalet så kunne hun være reddet, hvis ikke hun skulle bruges til tidkrævende propaganda til ære for en villigt godtroende Obama.

Obama om at forsvare sig mod terror

Diverse, Obama, Socialdemokratiet, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 30, 2014 at 4:37 pm

Socialdemokraterne i Norden er oprørte over at Helle Thorning Schmidt ikke vil være med til fordømme Israel for at forsvare sig selv. Lad derfor modtager af Nobels Fredspris og den ubestridte dronekonge Barak Hussein Obama forklare hvorfor det er en uæstetisk nødvendighed, men en nødvendig ikke desto mindre, at forsvare sit land mod terror ifølge The New Yorker

“I think any President should be troubled by any war or any kinetic action that leads to death,” Obama told me when I brought up Yousafzai’s remarks. “The way I’ve thought about this issue is, I have a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans—killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.”

Obama said that, if terrorists can be captured and prosecuted, “that’s always my preference. If we can’t, I cannot stand by and do nothing. They operate in places where oftentimes we cannot reach them, or the countries are either unwilling or unable to capture them in partnership with us. And that then narrows my options: we can simply be on defense and try to harden our defense. But in this day and age that’s of limited—well, that’s insufficient. We can say to those countries, as my predecessor did, if you are harboring terrorists, we will hold you accountable—in which case, we could be fighting a lot of wars around the world. And, statistically, it is indisputable that the costs in terms of not only our men and women in uniform but also innocent civilians would be much higher. Or, where possible, we can take targeted strikes, understanding that anytime you take a military strike there are risks involved. What I’ve tried to do is to tighten the process so much and limit the risks of civilian casualties so much that we have the least fallout from those actions. But it’s not perfect.”

It is far from that. In December, an American drone flying above Al Bayda province, in Yemen, fired on what U.S. intelligence believed was a column of Al Qaeda fighters. The “column” was in fact a wedding party; twelve people were killed, and fifteen were seriously injured. Some of the victims, if not all, were civilians. This was no aberration. In Yemen and Pakistan, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, American drones have killed between some four hundred and a thousand civilians—a civilian-to-combatant ratio that could be as high as one to three. Obama has never made it clear how the vast populations outraged and perhaps radicalized by such remote-control mayhem might figure into his calculations about American security.

“Look, you wrestle with it,” Obama said. “And those who have questioned our drone policy are doing exactly what should be done in a democracy—asking some tough questions. The only time I get frustrated is when folks act like it’s not complicated and there aren’t some real tough decisions, and are sanctimonious, as if somehow these aren’t complicated questions. Listen, as I have often said to my national-security team, I didn’t run for office so that I could go around blowing things up.”

Nemlig sosser, en nations ret og vilje til at forsvare sig selv må i bryde lidt mere med.

Allahu Akbar

51

Nyt syn på Obama?

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, Obama, Pressen, USA, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 11, 2013 at 9:20 am

Det har længe været flere højredrejedes opfattelse at Obama  vil gå over i den amerikanske historie, som deres absolut mest kriminelle præsident. Det er sager som aflytning af pressen, smugling af våben henover den mexikanske grænse og hans brug af skattevæsnet i en klapjagt på politiske modstandere. Nu ser det ud til at hans ulovligheder bliver overskygget af hans inkompetence. En god ven beskrev Obama således

Obama har altid været vant til at være “the smartest guy in the room” - dels fordi han altid har samarbejdet med ligesindede der ikke modsagde ham, dels fordi han eller hans bagmænd konstant har undergravet enhver opposition før det kom til en mano-a-mano-kamp. Han har aldrig lidt et reelt nederlag, og tror derfor at han kan klare alt. Samtidig er han netop på grund af fraværet af nederlag panisk angst for at tillægge sig et, fordi det vil ødelægge hans wannabe-uovervindelighed. Ergo tøver han før enhver større beslutning, og prøver så vidt muligt at lade være med at træffe den selv - han overdrager det til andre. Men fordi han netop ikke selv vil træffe beslutningerne eller sætte sin prestige ind på dem, så ender det hele med at være noget halvhjertet sjusk, som man intet kan bygge på.

Pressens forelskelse i fortællingen Obama ser efterhånden ud til at krakelere . Jyllands-Posten skriver i sin leder om Obama

Den mest slagkraftige forskel samles i de forskellige personligheder - hadeobjektet George W. Bush, der stadig dæmoniseres helt ud i parodien, og everybody’s darling, Barack Obama, der i den grad er ved at blive indhentet af virkeligheden. En nøgtern analyse taler til Bushs fordel.

Op til Irak-krigen havde Bush sørget for at opbygge en stor international koalition, og han havde et klart strategisk og militært mål med aktionen. Han havde forberedt den amerikanske opinion på en helt anden måde, end Obama har, og Bush havde langt mere tungtvejende grunde til at gå i krig med Irak ud fra en national sikkerhedsbetragtning, end Obama har i tilfældet Syrien. Omvendt opererede Bush så afgjort i et stærkt emotionaliseret farvand efter terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001, lige som han ikke skulle slås med dagens almindelige krigstræthed. Men at udmale en verden til forskel på Irak 2003 og Syrien 2013 er uholdbart.

Obama har rystet på hånden. Det kan en amerikansk præsident bare ikke tillade sig. Det er ikke kun ham selv, embedet og USA, men alle civiliserede kræfter, der kan stå tilbage som tabere.

New York Times skrev hvorledes denne teleprompter præsident

Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.

The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.

In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

Politico

If President Barack Obama isn’t happy with his press coverage in the United States, he ought to take a look at how he’s being portrayed in the Arab media.

As Obama steps up his push for congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, the president is coming under withering criticism by opinion leaders throughout the Middle East, according to a review by POLITICO and experts of Arabic- and English-language media in the region.

The Obama bashing can be categorized in several ways: Those who charge the president’s needlessly dragging his feet; conspiracy theorists who argue it’s all a plot to boost Israel; and others who claim that any military operation in Syria is motivated only by the U.S.’s interest in dominating the region.

The increasingly unfavorable coverage Obama’s receiving in the Arab world - even come from the press in countries that support U.S. intervention in Syria - is doing harm to his image and influence, as well as further diminishing how America is perceived in the region, experts say. It hits especially hard coming at a time when Obama is looking anywhere he can, at home and abroad, to find allies for his plan to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“There are (Arab) media who say the U.S. should do something and basically Obama is being a chicken shit about it,” said Lawrence Pintak, a former Middle East correspondent for CBS News and founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. “The main talking point is that al-Assad needs to be stopped, this is a humanitarian crisis the U.S. needs to move. The second set is that Obama is showing a level of cowardice in turning to Congress for political cover, that it undermines American effectiveness.”

Og Memri har samlet nogle arabiske satiretegninger af bl.a Obama

16397

16401

16405

Obama: idiot eller genial?

Arabiske forår, Obama, Politik, USA, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 am

Ezra Klein skriver om Obamas  på Washington Post’s Wonkblog (min fremhævning)

Boxed in by red-line rhetoric and the Sunday show warriors, the Obama administration needed to somehow mobilize the opposition to war in Syria. It did that by “fumbling” the roll-out terribly.

The arguments were lengthy and unclear. The White House expressly admitted that their strikes wouldn’t save Syrian lives or topple Assad or making anything better in any way, and they were instead asking Americans to bomb Syria in order to enforce abstract international norms of warfare. It would be the first military action in American history that wasn’t meant to save lives or win a war but to slightly change the mix of arms a dictator was using to slaughter his population.

All this was helpful in creating opposition. But then Obama turned on a dime and decided to go to Congress at the last minute, making his administration look indecisive and fearful of shouldering the blame for this unpopular intervention, putting the decision in the hands of a body famous for being unable to make decisions, giving the argument for strikes more time to lose support, and giving an American public that opposes intervention in Syria more time and venues to be heard.

And then, after all that, Obama goes to Congress with an absurdly broad force authorization — so broad that it doesn’t specify when it ends, or even really limit which countries can be hit. The force authorization offended even Obama’s allies in Congress, left many questioning his motives, and has now been thrown out by the Senate. Members of Congress and their aides I’ve spoken to remain shocked that Obama chose to come to Congress and then handed them that document.

And on Tuesday, of course, Secretary of State John Kerry stepped before the Senate and, asked, to forswear ground troops, said, “I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be on the table.” He later walked the comments back as “a hypothetical,” but they led the nightly news, and pushed the possibility of escalation further into the discussion.

The Obama administration’s strategy to cool the country on this war without expressly backing away from the president’s red lines has been brilliant, Hill aides say (just look at the polls showing overwhelming opposition!). If they are going to go to war, their efforts to goad Congress into writing a punitively narrow authorization of force that sharply limits any potential for escalation have worked beautifully.

David Trads er derimod af den opfattelse at Obamas latterlige håndtering af sin egen røde streg ikke er et resultat af en pinlig og inkonsistent udenrigspolitik uden indsigt i den virkelige verden, men tværtimod en genial plan, der skal få Assad fra magten

Den reelle årsag til, at Obama i weekenden pludselig tøvede med at angribe Syrien, er, at han alene ved at true med et forestående angreb fik etableret en reel dialog med den russiske præsident Putin. Bag de allermest hermetisk lukkede døre foregår der, spekulerer jeg på, i disse døgn forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland på et meget højt plan om, hvordan man kan løse det syriske problem på en måde, hvor ingen taber ret meget ansigt.

En løsning kunne være, at Putin giver Bashar al-Assad asyl i Rusland; at Obama lover at undlade at angribe Syrien; og at det internationale samfund lover at lade være med at forsøge at retsforfølge den syriske leder.

En anden løsning kunne være, at Putin allerede i weekenden signalerede - præcist som han nu gør i nedenstående Reuters-telegram - at han måske godt kan gå med til et Syrien-angreb, hvis det ellers lykkes at dokumentere bedre end nu, at Assad faktisk beordrede giftgasangrebet.

Hvem havde set den komme? Der findes ikke megen kritik af Obama og hans inkompetence. Mange af de, der buser på for at få Obama til at gå enegang aogbombe et eller andet i et eller andet omfang var de samme der talte om FN spor og ulovlige krige under Bush, der blev kritiseret for at samle en koalition af mere end 40 lande, hvoraf flere var ganske civiliserede.

« Previous Page

Monokultur kører på WordPress