A TRIBUTE TO FORMER US PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
January 20, 2017
When foreign policy comes into play, I think it is fair to acknowledge (first of all) that former US President Barack Obama gave the green light for the raid that put an end to the bin-Laden era. It was May 1st, 2011.
Next, in my opinion, there were two more days that brought tremendous prestige to the White House during the last eight years: January 11, 2015 and March 29, 2015. I am sure that some will ask: "What the hell did happen back then?" It happened that statesmen like François Hollande and Abu Mazen marched together after the Charlie Hebdo attack (Paris March) and the Bardo massacre (Tunis March). Yet, despite the enthusiastic participation of many heads of state, Barack Obama did not show up. He had the merit to snub ridiculous events, which could not harm any terrorist organization in any way and could only serve to give the impression that rogue states have never existed. In other words, those parades were nothing but a trick to suggest that the most fanatic criminals essentially belong to isolated groups—with no connections to any government, any religious movement, any legacy left by Yasser Arafat (a major pioneer in the terrorism business).
They were three magic moments, indeed... but what about the remaining 2,919 days? We must probably remember the highly coveted Nobel Prize for Peace. That really was an astonishing achievement, since Barack Obama (at that time) had done absolutely nothing, apart from wonderful flattering speeches. So, it is reasonable to believe that the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace was not intended to be a reward for the new US President, but a political initiative of an anti-Bush organization, which had already shown off its anti-Bush platform by awarding the same prize to Jimmy Carter (in 2002, after his stance against preemptive wars) and Al Gore (in 2007, for his politically correct dissertations on global climate catastrophe or, more likely, for his attempt to defeat George W. Bush in 2000).
Anyway, let's have a look at the great contribution that was given to global peace by Barack Obama as a Nobel Laureate. I would start with Libya. In principle, the air raids and the idea of toppling Colonel Gaddafi were not too bad, but I would have expected that a skilled strategist had (at the very least) a vague idea about the mining field where he was moving and about the people (the so-called moderate rebels) who were destined to take the place of the former dictator. Everyone knows what happened and is still happening in terms of casualties, safe havens for the Islamic State, proliferation of radical groups, devastation for the Libyans, migrant flows.
Next, there was Iraq, where former President George W. Bush had already made serious mistakes: after the fall of Baghdad, the Iraqi borders were not sealed, a politician like Nouri Maliki became prime minister, Shia militias were allowed to do whatever they wanted and no attempt was made to come to a compromise with the Sunni military, which was the only efficient component of the Iraqi Army and later became the backbone of the Islamic State in Iraq. Well, President Barack Obama succeeded in worsening an already critical situation, when he made the great decision to abandon Iraq. Again, everybody knows what happened and is still happening in terms of casualties, safe havens for fanatic militants, devastation for the Iraqis, migrant flows.
Moving from Iraq to neighboring Syria, how could we downplay Barack Obama's historical contribution to an apparently perpetual state of war? When he decided to get rid of al-Assad, did he have a hint about the moderate rebels who were supposed to take control of the country? Or was he simply moved by his anti-Russian policy, which (in turn) was probably due to his strong personal feelings against Vladimir Putin?
We should not forget some embarrassing events of the past, either. First, Kosovo had been stolen from Serbia, a major Russian ally (while Crimea had been stolen from Russia in 1954 thanks to Nikita Khrushchev). Second, Libya had been attacked without taking care of the Russian stance on that controversial issue. I assume that Barack Obama was not happy enough: he had to meddle in Syria's affairs and disregard the Kremlin's interests in that country, without realizing that Russia had well recovered from the aftermath of the Soviet Union collapse, Afghan War and Chechen War.
In addition, his anti-Putin rage did not allow President Obama to understand that Russia could rather be a key ally in the war on terror—a far better and much more reliable ally than any country in Western Europe, as proven in Chechnya and, more recently, in Syria itself. Of course, there is no denying that innocent civilians were often killed in consequence of the Russian military operations. However, human losses are inevitable when terrorist organizations set foot in highly-populated areas. After all, lots of civilians were killed during World War 2 or, more recently, in the Gaza Strip: in order to defeat an enemy, it must be attacked where he is looking for shelter—maybe with the complicity of allegedly innocent civilians, who are ready to complain when they are turned into human shields. By the way, the situation in Mosul and al-Raqqa is not very different: if the Iraqi Army and the so-called moderate rebels want to conquer Mosul and al-Raqqa, significant losses of civilians must be taken into account. Naturally, this is something that the former US President and his European allies pretend to ignore. Their priority is to blame Putin and discredit Russia.
Something similar probably happened in the case of Israel. Barack Obama's anti-Netanyahu feelings eventually prevailed. In full agreement with a progressive Western world driven by anti-Semitic sentiments, the White House began to side with the politically correct governments, which regularly forget that wars have always had serious consequences: just think of the German and Italian refugees. If it were so obvious that the two-state solution should restore the 1967 borders, there is no reason why the pre-war German and Italian borders should not be on the negotiating table in UN talks. More importantly, it is not surprising that Israel is not willing to accept a state where textbooks used in UN-sponsored schools ignore the existence of Israel itself and where Hamas is a leading party, supported by a significant part of the Palestinian people—Hamas, whose Covenant explicitly states: "The Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!"
I guess that the Americans or the Britons or the Germans or the French or the Italians or the Russians or the Chinese would not be happy if the United Nations unconditionally supported a neighboring Palestinian State characterized by a Hamas agenda of this kind: "The Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Americans/Britons/Germans/French/Italians/Russians/Chinese (and kill them); until the Americans/Britons/Germans/French/Italians/Russians/Chinese hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is an American/British/German/French/Italian/Russian/Chinese guy behind me, come on and kill him!"
Not to talk about the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip against Israel...
As for Israel and the UN approach to the Palestinian question, the topic has been very well known for decades. For instance, in Chapter 6 of Jihad Al-Kuffar (which was published in 2010) the maniacal obsession with anti-Israel UN resolutions is addressed, while the main character of the novel is travelling across the West Bank. According to the story, he is talking to a fellow-fighter, Nassim, in October 2000. Suddenly, they start discussing possible anti-terrorism measures that might be imposed by the Israeli authorities. In the end, however, they come to the conclusion that Israel must be very careful and should be prepared to give a free hand to any terrorist group, in order to avoid boycott, contempt and retaliation from the so-called international community:
It was easy to conclude that the Zionists would never resort to severe measures to stop martyrs. The misuse of force would be too dangerous. Effects would be catastrophic. In less than no time, Western governments would start massive campaigns to make them pay the earth for any stupid attempt to defend themselves. I definitely agreed with Nassim. We did not need to worry. Our militants would continue to promote jihad, attack the Jews, and receive messages of solidarity from the civil world, always ready to issue a tough United Nations resolution against Israel.
Finally, on this deplorable day, I would like to mention an article published in the deplorable website of the deplorable RT news network [https://www.rt.com/usa/374280-cnn-trump-inauguration-survivor/]. It is concerned with the "wishful thinking" of the non-deplorable voters, citizens, artists, billionaires, journalists, political pundits who do not like Donald Trump. As reported in the article, an American well-known non-deplorable television channel has "envisioned a scenario in which Speaker of the House Paul Ryan as well as President pro tempore of the US Senate, Orrin Hatch, perished along with Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence, pushing the chain of succession to the cabinet." In consequence, "because none of Trump's Cabinet picks have been confirmed by the Senate yet, the above scenario would result in acting Secretary of State Thomas Shannon becoming the new president." Incidentally, "Shannon was among some 50 Obama administration officials who will not be replaced right away, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the US government during the transition."
While we are here, let me make a final remark. According to some polls, Barack Obama has an extremely favorable rating. Frankly speaking, it is quite strange that the passionate support of so many Americans did not materialize into a sound defeat of Donald Trump, whose campaign was clearly based on an openly anti-Obama agenda! There is no doubt, however, that the (obviously non-deplorable) left has a great capability to yell and shout and make noise all over the world, with the aim of transforming each protester into fictitious dozens of demonstrators. And these fictitious dozens, always supported by the politically correct media, arrogate to themselves the right to blame and rebuke the deplorable people who have different political views—especially when the deplorables become a majority. The funny thing is that it all happens in the name of democracy...
Remark by Julie, UK on 01/22/2017 at 08:10:31 AM
Subject: Roosevelt vs. Trump
Content: I have just read an amazing anti-Trump editorial in The Guardian's website. Here are a couple of statements: "In 1933, Roosevelt challenged the world to overcome fear. In 2017, Mr Trump told the world to be very afraid." Has the author of this remark ever heard about World War 2, which broke out in 1939? Does the name Pearl Harbor ring any bells to him? Did anyone tell him that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared war on Japan in 1941 even though he had encoraged "the world to overcome fear"? The moral is clear: maybe President Trump is quite right when he tells "the world to be very afraid". For instance, ISIS was not invented by Donald Trump.
Remark by Aleksandar, SRB on 01/21/2017 at 10:15:12 AM
Content: Thanks for your remarks on Kosovo, which actually was the cradle of Serbian civilization. However, Serbia became a victim of Tito, who was a Croat, hated Serbia and always did his best to lay the foundations for an independent Kosovo.