Ed Obama's speech to the Muslim world

[quadraginta]

The bad:

False moral equivalence and at least one strawman, the latter of which is an Obama specialty.

<snip>

Strawman: "America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam." Okay. Who said it was? George Bush? Well, no:

<snip>

I'm unclear why this constitutes a "strawman" argument. It would seem to be, by the reference you supply, an affirmation.

Oh, wait. I was confused.

You are providing the "strawman" by suggesting that there was a "strawman".

Very clever. Did I pass the quiz?

 

[tomwaits]

No, I had the impression it was a bunch of Muslim loonies.

I didn't realize that Obama's whole speech had to be a denunciation of George W. Bush, but your post, sir, has chastened me. Of course every word in it has to be a denunciation of Bush, and if anything Obama says appears to rebuke anyone else ...

... excuse me, did you just use the word "strawman"?

Oliver was the one who said "Nothing new? You're kidding me - or you never actually listened to recent US Presidents talking about the same issues Obama addressed. Pretty much all of it was new."

So no, pointing out that Bush had said many of these things is not a strawman.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

yes it is anecdotal.
sure we fight people driven by religion.
when we arrest a man driven by his christian belive that killed someone, a doctor for example. does that mean we are now at war with christianity?

If a group calling themselves 'The Christian Liberation movement' declare war on the secular values of the West, planning operations that plan to grind the West to its knees by killing thousands of people, then sure, we are at war with Christianity.

The Middle East was at war with Christianity when the crusades were launched, don't you agree?

 

[Pardalis]

I love the new image of the USA.

What is exactly the new image?

Obama talked about the fight against radical Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about how the US is not at war with Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about Iran being bound by the non-proliferation treaty, Bush ditto ☑
Obama talked about how Israel is not going away, obviously Bush had the same view ☑
Obama talked about a two state solution, Bush too ☑
And if anyone thinks him saying that the Israeli settlements were illegal was an improvement, here are past presidents saying about the same thing:
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm ☑

Except maybe the tone which was more friendly, and except maybe about Guantanamo and torture, the content wasn't really that much different.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm unclear why this constitutes a "strawman" argument. It would seem to be, by the reference you supply, an affirmation.

Oh, wait. I was confused.

You are providing the "strawman" by suggesting that there was a "strawman".

Very clever. Did I pass the quiz?

And the newbie gets it in one!

Welcome to the board, quadraginta.

 

[mortimer]

What is exactly the new image?

Obama talked about the fight against radical Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about how the US is not at war with Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about Iran being bound by the non-proliferation treaty, Bush ditto ☑
Obama talked about how Israel is not going away, obviously Bush had the same view ☑
Obama talked about a two state solution, Bush too ☑
And if anyone thinks him saying that the Israeli settlements were illegal was an improvement, here are past presidents saying about the same thing:
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm ☑

Except maybe the tone which was more friendly, and except maybe about Guantanamo and torture, the content wasn't really that much different.

I think someone said it earlier, but Obama has a way of connecting with his audience in a way Bush couldn't. I don't think many people outside the U.S. actually believed Bush when he said many of these things.

 

[quadraginta]

And the newbie gets it in one!

Welcome to the board, quadraginta.

Than Kuew.

Lots of fun to be had around here.

Barrels ...

... fish ...

and like that.

 

[DC]

If a group calling themselves 'The Christian Liberation movement' declare war on the secular values of the West, planning operations that plan to grind the West to its knees by killing thousands of people, then sure, we are at war with Christianity.

The Middle East was at war with Christianity when the crusades were launched, don't you agree?

when the pope and other christian leaders point out that the TCLM's "Christianity" is not the normaly teached christianity and is even contradicting Christian teachings and values, we are still at war with Christianity or far more with the TCLM?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

when the pope and other christian leaders point out that the TCLM's "Christianity" is not the normaly teached christianity and is even contradicting Christian teachings and values, we are still at war with Christianity or far more with the TCLM?

Of course we are still at war with Christianity. The Pope's opinions don't silence that. The hypothetical TCLM are still driven by Christianity. The Crusaders were Christians.

 

[Tin Foil Timothy]

If you don't like that, go and live in France.

This is America.

Really? I thought it was the Internet?

 

[DC]

What is exactly the new image?

Obama talked about the fight against radical Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about how the US is not at war with Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about Iran being bound by the non-proliferation treaty, Bush ditto ☑
Obama talked about how Israel is not going away, obviously Bush had the same view ☑
Obama talked about a two state solution, Bush too ☑
And if anyone thinks him saying that the Israeli settlements were illegal was an improvement, here are past presidents saying about the same thing:
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm ☑

Except maybe the tone which was more friendly, and except maybe about Guantanamo and torture, the content wasn't really that much different.

First of all the way he talks.
Its things like

More recently, tension has been fed by
colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in
which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their
own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization
led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who
sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that
can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and
discord must end.

In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No
single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's
why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations
hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the
right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it
must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region
can share in this goal.

No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

and so many more things.

 

[DC]

Of course we are still at war with Christianity. The Pope's opinions don't silence that. The hypothetical TCLM are still driven by Christianity. The Crusaders were Christians.

what do you mean with at war with.

 

[quadraginta]

Of course we are still at war with Christianity. The Pope's opinions don't silence that. The hypothetical TCLM are still driven by Christianity. The Crusaders were Christians.

what do you mean with at war with.

What does he mean "we"?

 

[dudalb]

If a group calling themselves 'The Christian Liberation movement' declare war on the secular values of the West, planning operations that plan to grind the West to its knees by killing thousands of people, then sure, we are at war with Christianity.

The Middle East was at war with Christianity when the crusades were launched, don't you agree?

Actually, the Mideast was more at war with itself at the time of the First Crusade.
The main reason the Crusaders were able to establish the Crusader Kingdoms was because The Moslem Kingdoms were busily engaged in fighting each other. If they could have united, the First Crusade never would have stood a chance. And Muslim intenencine warfare was a main reason Outremer was able to last as long as it did.

 

[Bobert]

What is exactly the new image?

Obama talked about the fight against radical Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about how the US is not at war with Islam, so did Bush ☑
Obama talked about Iran being bound by the non-proliferation treaty, Bush ditto ☑
Obama talked about how Israel is not going away, obviously Bush had the same view ☑
Obama talked about a two state solution, Bush too ☑
And if anyone thinks him saying that the Israeli settlements were illegal was an improvement, here are past presidents saying about the same thing:
http://www.cmep.org/documents/settlements.htm ☑

Except maybe the tone which was more friendly, and except maybe about Guantanamo and torture, the content wasn't really that much different.

IMHO Obama comes across as much more trustworthy and sincere makes all the difference. For what its worth I am not much of a Bush basher but I think the world view of Obama is much more positive than that of Bush so yes while Obama's speech may have been along similar lines of Bush, Obamas speech had more of an impact.

 

[dudalb]

I think someone said it earlier, but Obama has a way of connecting with his audience in a way Bush couldn't. I don't think many people outside the U.S. actually believed Bush when he said many of these things.

I 100% agree, but in terms of content there was not that much that was new.
And few details about how bringing some sort of peace to the Mideast will happen. And ,as always, the Devil is in the details.

 

[DC]

What does he mean "we"?

i wonder myself.

 

[varwoche]

The bad:

False moral equivalence and at least one strawman, the latter of which is an Obama specialty.

False moral equivalence: The Iranian revolution was bad, but so was the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq. Missing is the fact that the mullahs had no use for Mossadeq either.

False moral equivalence: The Holocaust was bad. So is the Israeli "occupation."

Strawman: "America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam." Okay. Who said it was? George Bush?

Maybe you could post the parts from the speech that you've characterized here, so readers can get a sense if your characterizations are reasonable. (I bet not.)

 

[Toke]

I recall Bush making a speach of how Americas foreing policy would change to support democraties around the world. was dedicated to supporting democraties around the world.

I was all convinced and surprised for a few seconds.
Then realised that it was the makeup for realpolitik as usual.

Is Obama any different?

 

[tyr_13]

Not much talk about that partnering with countries who want to educate and hold their women as equals? Nothing? Anyone?