Obama: geen wereldstrijd tegen 'Islamitisch extremisme'

De nieuwe Amerikaanse nationale veiligheidsstrategie zal niet meer zijn gebaseerd op Bush’
heilloos-contraproductieve ideologie van een wereldwijde oorlog met ‘islamitisch extremisme’.
Wat een opluchting – zie mijn blog onderaan voor nadere toelichting op mijn kritiek op de  Global War on Terror.
In het zionistisch beleid van opeenvolgende Israelische regeringen zijn de nationale bevrijdingsbewegingen Hezbollah en Hamas gerangschikt onder internationale islamistische
terroristische groeperingen teneinde het Westen tegen hen op te zetten. Dit zal nu niet meer zo kritiekloos worden aanvaard.

Obama bans terms `Islam` and `jihad` from U.S. security document (AP/Haaretz)

President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said. 

The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century. 

The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it…

More cause and effect in the War against Terrorists (by Glenn Greenwald in Salon)

The extreme paradox of our actions in the Muslim world is now well-documented: namely, the very policies justified in the name of fighting Terrorism (invasions, occupations, bombings, lawless detentions, etc.) are the precise ones that most inflame and exacerbate that threat…

How many new America-haters and suicide bombers did we create today with the story (accurate or not) of our bombarding that civilian bus with bullets?  How many have been created by what Gen. McChrystal calls the "amazing number" of innocent people and families we’ve shot at Afghan checkpoints in the last nine months alone?  Listen to the embittered anti-American rage of the brother of the 21-year-old Reuters photographer killed by the Apache helicopter in Baghdad after the brother (along with hundreds of millions of other Muslims) viewed the WikiLeaks video.  Two weeks ago, horror over a deadly suicide attack in the Moscow subway system was quickly followed by the unsurprising revelation that the suicide bomber was the young widow of an insurgent killed by Russian forces three months ago, because suicide bombers tend to be what gets produced when foreign armies kill people’s loved ones.  WikiLeaks is now preparing to release graphic video of an American airstrike last year that killed close to 100 Afghan civilians, after which the U.S. vehemently (and falsely) insisted that it was Taliban fighters, not civilians, who were killed.  How many suicide bombers did that incident create, and how many will be created when the video of what we did is broadcast around the world?…

Both Gen. Petraeus and Gen. McChrystal have been admirably candid about the link between our actions and the Terrorist reaction they cause, along with the need to be mindful of that causal link, but waging war in countries where the Enemy is composed of a substantial part of the population will inevitably entail incidents like the bus shooting this morning, and thus inevitably worsen the Terrorist problem we are ostensibly trying to combat.

Even worse, we continue to vest extraordinary powers in the President and to change our form of government based on the bipartisan decree thatWE ARE AT WAR! — meaning not our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but our "War on Terror" generally.  It has been obvious (and openly acknowledged) from the start that this "war" has no real end, at least not for decades, which means all these executive powers to which we are acquiescing are essentially permanent.  But just to be sure, the U.S. Government continues to engage in a litany of actions that spawn more and more anti-American hatred and thus ensure that the Terrorism used to justify these always-expanding domestic powers will endure forever.  Even for those who are convinced of both the justifiability and morality of our ongoing wars, aren’t these costs intolerably high?..

Mohamed ElBaradei hits out at west’s support for repressive regimes (Jack Shenker in Guardian)

Western governments risk creating a new generation of Islamist extremists if they continue to support repressive regimes in the Middle East, the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the Guardian.

In his first English-language interview since returning to Cairo in February, the Nobel peace prize-winner said the strategy of supporting authoritarian rulers in an effort to combat the threat of Islamic extremism had been a failure, with potentially disastrous consequences.

"There is a need for re-evaluation … the idea that the only alternative to authoritarian regimes is [Osama] Bin Laden and co is a fake one, yet continuation of current policies will make that prophecy come true," he said. "I see increasing radicalisation in this area of the world, and I understand the reason. People feel repressed by their own governments, they feel unfairly treated by the outside world, they wake up in the morning and who do they see – they see people being shot and killed, all Muslims from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Darfur."

ElBaradei said he felt vindicated in his cautious approach while head of the International Atomic Energy Authority. He revealed that all his reports in the runup to the Iraq war were designed to be "immune from being abused" by governments. "I would hope that the lessons of Iraq, both in London and in the US, have started to sink in," he said.

"Sure, there are dictators, but are you ready every time you want to get rid of a dictator to sacrifice a million innocent civilians? All the indications coming out of [the Chilcot inquiry] are that Iraq was not really about weapons of mass destruction but rather about regime change, and I keep asking the same question – where do you find this regime change in international law? And if it is a violation of international law, who is accountable for that?"…

A Mideast opportunity Obama shouldn’t ignore (The Washington Post, 19 April, 2010)

In the Middle East, the conditions on the groundmake a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement impossible to accomplish in the short term. They make anything more than delay and containment of Iran’s nuclear ambitions similarly far-fetched, unless military force is used or a domestic revolution takes place. But they offer what may be a golden opportunity for democratization..

Nederland laat zich meeslepen in onnodige en niet te winnen wereldstrijd tegen ‘islamofascisme’


10 thoughts on “Obama: geen wereldstrijd tegen 'Islamitisch extremisme'

  1. De gein is, dat het niet veel uit maakt of Obama wel of niet de wereld-Islamitische-terreur erkend, de wereld-Islamitische-terreur erkend Amerika :-). Ongeacht hoe Obama het noemt, zal deze terreur Amerika opnieuw aanvallen zodra zij dat kan, ook als Obama het ‘bommen vol madeliefjes’ zal noemen. Het resultaat zal, afgezien van veel Amerikaanse pijn, zijn dat Amerika na Obama zal moeten terug draaien naar de Bush doctrine.

  2. Zal wel cliché zijn, maar enkelvoud van "erkennen" is erkenT, niet erkend, ET.
    Dat is verleden tijd: "heeft erkend", of "is erkend", ofzo.
    Dat radicalisme zich onderwijl over de aardbol heeft verspreid, onder die bush-doctrine, wil nog niet zeggen dat ze niet kan uitdoven, hè.

  3. Er bestaat zeker islamitisch extremisme. En daar dient tegen gestreden te worden. Maar dat is niet het grote ideologisch conflict van het begin van de 21e eeuw. Terrorisme is altijd een randverschijnsel.
    In plaats van de termen ‘moslim extremisme’ te bannen, had hij beter ‘ideologisch conflict’ geschrapt.

  4. @Mephisto,
    Bedankt voor de verbetering. Na meer dan 30 jaar uit Nederland weg te zijn gaat het nog al eens fout :-).

  5. @Mephisto,
    Aan spelfouten en vreemd taalgebruik zijn de op internet reagerende (oud Nederlandse) bewoners vaak te herkennen. Ze zijn hier niet allemaal zo openhartig over als ET.

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit /  Bijwerken )


Verbinden met %s