Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Share

The only people denouncing President Obama's Cairo speech seem to be right-wing nuts at home and Islamic extremists abroad. This is a good set of opponents to have.  

Meanwhile, I like Obama's summary this morning in Germany of what he is thinking about the Middle East:

And as the Chancellor mentioned, we discussed my recent trip to the Middle East and the need for all of us to redouble our efforts to bring about two states, Israel and a Palestinian state, that are living side by side in peace and security. I think the moment is now for us to act on what we all know to be the truth, which is that each side is going to have to make some difficult compromises; we have to reject violence.

The Palestinians have to get serious about creating the security environment that is required for Israel to feel confident. Israelis are going to have to take some difficult steps. I discussed some of those in the speech."

"Difficult steps and hard compromises" would be a good name for Obama's emerging Middle East policy.

Photo by Pete Souza/White House via Getty Images

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SIMPLESIMON

11:25 AM ET

June 6, 2009

right where he (Obama) wants them

In reference to the denial by Iranian president Ahmadinejad that holocaust ever happened, President Obama said in Germany that ’he does NOT have patience with people who would deny history’. Here is some history that President should know and NOT deny either.

The political arm of Islam has been waging terroristic holy war on the rest of the world for centuries. It has waged this war against civilizations that have nothing to do with the West, let alone America. This is why the case of Muslim aggression against India proves so much.

Medieval India, before the Muslim invasions, was a richly imaginative culture, one of the half-dozen most advanced civilizations of all time. Muslim invaders began entering India in the early 8th century, on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of what is now Iraq. In the aftermath of the Muslim invasions of India from 8th to 11th centuries, in the ancient cities of Varanasi, Mathura, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived whole and intact. This is the equivalent of an army marching into Paris and Rome, Florence and Oxford, and razing their architectural treasures to the ground.

In his book The Story of Civilization, famous historian Will Durant lamented the results of what he termed "probably the bloodiest story in history." He called it "a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within. Muslim invaders "broke and burned everything beautiful they came across in Hindustan," displaying the resentment of the less developed warriors who felt intimidated in the encounter with "a more refined culture." The Muslim Sultans built mosques at the sites of torn down temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery. As far as they were concerned, Hindus were kafirs, heathens, par excellence. They, and to a lesser extent the peaceful Buddhists, were, unlike Christians and Jews, not "of the book" but at the receiving end of Muhammad’s injunction against pagans: "Kill those who join other gods wherever you may find them."

The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history. In sheer numbers, they are bigger than the Jewish Holocaust, the Soviet Terror, the Japanese massacres of the Chinese during WWII, Mao’s devastations of the Chinese peasantry, the massacres of the Armenians by the Turks, or any of the other famous crimes against humanity of the 20th Century. But sadly, they are almost unknown outside India. The perpetrators of these massacres were not military thugs disobeying the ethical teachings of their religion, as the European crusaders in the Holy Land were, but were actually doing precisely what their religion taught. As has been well-documented, jihad has been preached from the official centers of Islam, not just the lunatic fringe.

 

MREHAN

11:50 AM ET

June 8, 2009

Culture and language

The above article I have to point out the image what they want to project:
some other facts are:
India was ruled by muslim rulers and English rulers.
English rulers never became part of Indian culture and Indian languages. Language "Urdu" itself is best example of joint efforts to bring two cultures closer. Which western society would do it?
Even today most of the western managers want to capture Indian market without knowhow of Indian work culture and Indian local regional languages. They think all Indians understand English. If I want to capture Kolkatta market then I have to know local work culture and local language.
Same for other Indian states.

Considering creating of Pakistan as "historic mistake" thanks to not only Indian muslims but radical hindu groups and the British Raj was equal responsible.
Still we find second largest Muslim groups in India. They could still live in India because they are Indians! But not a single "Britsh Raj" person could live in India after 1947.
the season is simple:
Gandhi said:
"No culture can survive if it attempts to be exclusive"
Some of the Indian muslim rulers were bad but not all and they did not treat Indians like b grade citizens when they said: "no dogs and no Indians"

Did any Indian muslim ruler say such kind of things?
the writer of above commets should also know:
"All Religions are not same, but Fundamentalists Are" By M J Akbar

 

BILL KELLER

12:10 PM ET

June 6, 2009

Good two point ...

Enough from the picture. But believe there is a need for full team support from the Congress.

 

WZORTMAN

2:42 PM ET

June 6, 2009

Strategic Surprise

On Wednesday night I read in your book book, "The Gamble"
that the effect of replacing Gen Casey with Gen Petraeus led
to a strategic surprise in Iraq. The change in strategy was so swift and orthogonal that the enemy would take time to
adapt creating an advantage for MNF-I.

The next day, 4 June, President Obama delivered his address to the Muslim world in Cairo. The American people, by decisively shifting our government has achieved strategic surprise over the violent non-state actors in the Middle East and also Iran. The way Al-Qaeda reacted, preemptively to the President's speech was telling of the threat they see in this man. Iran was equally transparent.

The history of the Bush administration may include an
observation that heavy handed diplomacy and employment of
devastating violence created the opening for dialog. An
opening outside our borders, but also inside. Americans and
American leadership did not accept the ideas or personalities of Petraeus, Obama and Flournoy until we had run out of options and were approaching failure, defeat and the nasty things that come with it.

 

KINGGYPO

12:42 AM ET

June 7, 2009

The Butterfly Effect!

simple simon, irvine, ca: I saw this posting of yours at WAPO. I agree with your premise. As I said in one of my postings. I'm not one of the chosen people, and I have no ax to grind. Many of the posters were just plain Jane anti-Semites. Those people are not worth jousting with. I live outside New Orleans in a state that almost elected David Duke, so racism is alive and well, as is anti-Semitism. I spent many years going in and out of the Middle East and I'm fluent in Arabic, so I have a slightly different take on it all. I also have many close Jewish friends and Arab ones too. I'm certainly aware of all the horrible atrocities caused by the followers of Islam including the ones against the Hindus, but the Holocaust was a culmination of almost 1600 years of Christian crusades against the Jews. Islam murdered Jews, but Christianity had ongoing events staged worldwide to eliminate the people that killed their savior. The 6 million, was just a fascist (born Catholic) Nazi Adolph Hitler's final solution. A tip of the ice burg. When the SS St. Louis tried to dock here in the United States, it was turned away and 3/4 of the passengers were eventually murdered. Many countries and religious groups, knuckled under to the Nazis to save their own behinds and gave up their Jewish populations. Many Polish priests (BTW, I was born Catholic) gave up the Jews gladly, as a way of getting rid of them. Their local neighbors if they were poor farmers, took over their land gladly. The Vatican released thousands of documents in 1991, that showed the Pope Pius (Achille Ratti) had full knowledge of what was happening in Poland and the priests that were thankful for the final solution. The Polish born Pope John Paul went to Jerusalem in 2000 and asked for forgiveness. Yes, many Jews were saved by Catholics and especially the brave Dutch people. But, even before Hitler, the Catholic Church allowed pogroms to go on in Poland and condoned it. They even took part in the printing of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As did Henry Ford a rabid anti-Semite. Maybe my fellow Christians have no idea about the crusades and what started after Constantine, but I'm under no illusion to the facts. There were many people writing about the Armenian genocide, but the numbers aren't quite as meticulously documented like the Germans did with the Jews. Pol Pot in Cambodia, was a horrible event to cleanse their own society. Rwanda was an internal mass murder between 2 tribes. Somalia (Darfur), well we're back to Islam again. I just don't feel the need to quantify the losses of the Jewish people in general, compared to what others have lost in the name of God too. There's no doubt that there's been many atrocities committed against many different ethnic groups over the years, but the Jews of the world have been singled out for thousands of years. Regards, Sean

  • Sorry, about the bold print. I find it easier to read!
  •  

    KINGGYPO

    2:28 AM ET

    June 7, 2009

    The Butterfly Effect!


    Have you ever wondered what the world would be like, if Adolf Hitler were never born? What if we could go back in time and ring the doorbell, 10 seconds before Hitler was conceived. What would the world be like? How events that seem insignificant - like the motion of air across the wings of a butterfly - will change what people will be born 100 years from now. What would the world be like today if someone knocked on the door of Hitler's parent's house the moment he was being conceived? If the future is that sensitive - then is it possible to predict it - or even is there a "the future" to see into? Do we have free will and if we do - how does that change the future. Does randomness exist - or - is every moment the mathematical progression of every event of the previous moment?


    On another note, I put it there just for someone like you to ask me why I posted it! There was no reasoning to it. I was just going back to change it, and I was locked out. I also read the 1st post in the NYT and not WAPO, like I mentioned in my post. Thanks, for planting my feet back on earth!

     

    Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

    Read More