OBAMA'S FORESIGHT INTO THE PRESENT.
... as this week has shown.
Judging from what happened to United States embassies and consulates this week, with the raids of angry mobs around the world on them, and the killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens and three of his staffers; would it not be correct to say that Islam was (and is) a "G....." religion?
This hub did not say that; Salman Rushdie said so in his novel, "Satanic Verses", and for that, he was sentenced to death in absentia by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The order known as "fatwa" was imposed on Rushdie for Muslims to kill him for blasphemy.
He was exercising his right to free speech at the time (1989), just as the filmmaker, who made the video that sparked the attacks on U.S. diplomatic enclaves, was doing. Meaning that nothing has changed in the Arab or Muslim world, since Rushdie's days; and that violence was the only weapon that Muslims have in their arsenal, cultural and/or political, to deal with any problem.
In view of that, it would be hard to blame President Barack Obama, personally, or his foreign policy in the Middle East, as his opponent in the forth coming 2012 U.S. presidential election, Mitt Romney, was making a case of.
He was alluding to a weakness in Obama's leadership, when there has never been any indication that he (Obama) was weak in anything. He extended a friendly hand to the Muslim world soon after he became president; an with that in mind, he did what any astute political leader would do.
He had identified a potential enemy in advance, and the best thing was to make inroads into whatever differences he had with that enemy and to try and find a common ground for a peaceful co-existence with it.
If that was not clever of Obama, nothing could be farther from the truth, as he showed the whole world that diplomacy was the only venue to use to settle national and international grievances; but the question still remained that his speech on June 4th, 2009 of an olive branch or peace offering to the Muslim world in Cairo was misunderstood, let alone was it accepted; hence, the current disturbing events that have taken over in that area of the world, and if so, who was to blame? Definitely not Obama.
The U.S. has lately suffered a horrendous incident in Libya, a country that it had helped only recently to relieve it of a despot, who was ready to slaughter his own people (Libyans) to remain in power; and just take a look at what some of the same people have done. They have killed the U.S. Ambassador in that country.
The people in Benghazi, a city that was going to become a "ghost town" at the hands of Gadhafi security forces, have turned around to murder those that have freed them; and they couldn't care less as to who would be faulted or blamed, but Obama, being the U.S. president, with NATO leaders in a military coalition to save them. What a dramatic reversal of gratitude on the part of Libyans.
Obama's detractors wanted him to use force in every instance; as they were putting pressure on him to attack Iran's nuclear facilities to stop that country from being able to obtain "the bomb".
However, he was a man of peace; and he also knew that it was against international law for him to take that kind of action. In fact it would be an act of war against a sovereign state of Iran; and if he could do so, other countries that empathized with Iran would also use the same methodology to support its (Iran's) cause.
The result would be The Third World War (WW lll) breaking out, which nobody could stop. He was smart to know that he should not be the one to start a conflagration of that sort; and for that, his opponent, Romney, and his cohorts, were accusing him (Obama) of "leading from behind".
If U.S. embassies and consulates were being raided now by Muslims, when it (U.S.) has done nothing wrong to deserve their rage, imagine what would happen after Obama had struck Iran and destroyed its suspected nuclear centers, which that country has sworn that their purpose was to produce nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
The uproar would be far more tumultuous all over the world; and what was happening now in the Middle East and parts of Africa, would be childsplay.
His Republican challenger could rush to that kind of decision; but at least he (Romney) should wait for U.S. voters to give him the audacity to do so; an expectation, which many people doubted would be the case as a result of the 2012 presidential election; because they would never vote for a person, who already had his finger on the trigger, so to speak, before he was elected president. The scenario of that happening was a scary one.
The Muslim world should realize that they would be better off four years from now, if Obama won the U.S. election and not his rival, who would revisit (consider) war, instead of peace.
He, Romney, advocated "a strong military", and so did Obama, but his (Romney's) intentions were quite different from how he would use that military power.
"A word to the wise is enough" or should it be "Forewarned is forearmed", to the Muslim world and America?
Who on earth could avoid noticing that Obama's foresight into the present happened four years ago?