[Via Frontpage Mag]
The full impact of Western intervention in Libya was recently highlighted during a televised interview of Worlds Apart. Hanne Nabintu Herland, a Norwegian author and historian who was born and raised in Africa for 20 years, was the guest.
Before that, the African-born, Norwegian author said: At one point while talking about Libya, Herland firmly asserted that “In a just world, the political leaders in the West, that have done such atrocities towards other nations and other cultures, should have been sent to the Hague [International Criminal Court], and judged at the Hague, for atrocities against humanity.”
Libya is the worst example of Western countries’ assault in modern history; it’s a horrible thing to be a European intellectual and to watch your own political leaders go ahead and engage in something like this. In Norway, for example, when it comes to something like the Libyan war … [political leaders] sent SMS messages to the other people in parliament; it was never a discussion in parliament, it was an SMS saying “Let’s bomb because someone called from America.” We [Norway] bombed 588 bombs over roads, and water, and cities in Libya at that time. And we had a large documentary in Norway, after that, where the fighters, the pilots that flew over Libya and dropped these bombs, they actually said in the documentary that “We were sent up and we weren’t even told what to bomb—just bomb something that looks valuable.
Herland also pointed out that, according to UN figures, Gaddafi’s Libya was once the most prosperous nation in Africa. While Oksana Boyko, the host, sometimes disagreed with Herland, she agreed about the West’s counterproductive role, pointing out that Gaddafi “was very active in trying to advance women’s rights, he brought a lot of women into universities and the labor force [a thing few people in the West know, as usual, thanks to the “MSM”] and now what people and women in Libya are facing is Sharia [Islamic law], with the possibility of some of them being sold to ISIS fighters as virgin brides.”
Indeed, that the jihadis and other “ISIS” type militants gained the most from Western intervention in Libya cannot be denied. Simply looking at the treatment of Christian minorities—the litmus test of the radicalization of any Muslim society—proves this.
Thus, today, Monday, January 12, “A Libyan affiliate of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed the abduction of 21 Coptic Christians and released pictures of the captives.” It is not clear if these 21 are in addition to the 13 Christians kidnapped days earlier on January 3.
Then, around 2:30 a.m., masked men burst into a housing complex in Sirte, Libya. The militants went room to room checking ID cards to separate Muslims from Christians, handcuffed the latter and rode off with them.
(Segregating Christians from Muslims is a common procedure around the Islamic world. For example, last November, after members from the Islamic organization Al Shabaab hijacked a bus carrying 60 passengers in Kenya, they singled out and massacred the 28 non-Muslim passengers, the Christians. In October 2012 in Nigeria, Boko Haram jihadis stormed the Federal Polytechnic College, “separated the Christian students from the Muslim students … and then proceeded to shoot them or slit their throat,” killing up to 30 Christians.)
According to Hanna Aziz, a Copt who was concealed in his room when the other Christians were seized in Libya, “While checking IDs, Muslims were left aside while Christians were grabbed…. I heard my friends screaming but they were quickly shushed at gunpoint. After that, we heard nothing.”
Three of those seized were related to Aziz, who mournfully adds, “I am still in my room waiting for them to take me. I want to die with them.”
A few days earlier, also in Sirte, Libya, a Christian father, mother, and young daughter were slaughtered reportedly by Ansar al-Sharia—the “Supporters of Islamic Law,” or the Libyan version of ISIS that rose to power soon after the overthrow of Gaddafi.
On December 23, members of the Islamic group raided the Christian household, killing the father and mother, a doctor and a pharmacist, respectively, and kidnapping 13-year-old Katherine. Days later, the girl’s body was found in the Libyan desert—shot three times, twice in the head, once in the back (graphic images here).
As for motive, nothing was stolen from the household, even though money and jewelry were clearly visible. According to the girl’suncle, the reason this particular family was targeted is because “they are a Christian family—persecuted.”
In short, as I wrote nearly a year ago, it continues to be “open season on Christians in Libya.” In February, 2014, after Ansar al-Sharia offered a reward to any Benghazi resident who helped round up and execute the nation’s Coptic Christian residents, seven Christians were forcibly seized from their homes by “unknown gunmen,” marched out into the desert and shot execution style some 20 miles west of Benghazi (graphic pictures appear here).
Days later, another Coptic Christian, Salama Fawzi, 24, was shot in the head while unloading food in front of his grocery stand in Benghazi, again, by several “unknown gunmen.” And the day after that, a corpse was found, believed to be that of another Copt—due to the small cross tattooed on his wrist traditionally worn by Egyptian Christians.
This is to say nothing of the churches attacked, of Christian cemeteries desecrated, and of 100 Christians—including Western ones—arrested, tortured (some dying) for possessing Christian “paraphernalia” (like Bibles and crosses) in the post “Arab Spring” Libya the Obama administration and its allies helped create.
Needless to say, such atrocities were unheard of under Gaddafi’s “authoritarian” rule (just as they were unheard of in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq).
As previously mentioned, Muslim persecution of Christians is the litmus test of how “radical” an Islamic society has become. Thus, in all those Mideast nations that the U.S. and its Western allies have interfered—Iraq, Egypt (under Morsi), Libya, and ongoing Syria—the increase of Christian persecution there is a reflection of the empowerment of forces hostile to everything Western civilization once stood for.
cs says
But then again, was Qadaffi promoting any sort of peaceful government?
I guess not. And Saddam Hussein either for that matter.
mortimer says
The barbarians replacing Kaddafi and Saddam were equally barbaric because they were all pious Muslims.
Angemon says
Saddam and Gadafi were brutal dictators that did a lot of terrible things. They were also the least of two evils.
cs says
But the article does justice to them, more then deserved on my opinion.
cronk says
Lets see before we invaded Iraq, Christians, yedzis, sufis, secularists and women could live in peaceful, semi-functional society. Afterwards Bush and his lackies gave it over to a bunch of Shia thugs who went on the war path murdering Christians, Sufis, Yedzis, secularists, women, liqour store owners, Sunnis, etc.
Libya under Gaddafi was no great shakes, he knew he was beaten and why he approached the West. He was riding a tiger to sure. Libya is composed of several tribes who cannot get along unless it’s under a mailed fist Add in that Islamic fundamentalism was a serious issue as well that he could barely contain.
But the country was held together and functional, it produced oil and had somewhat of a civil society.
Now thanks to Americans it’s another training ground for fanatics and totally ruined.
pumbar says
They both, foolishly, decided to trade their oil in a currency that was not the dollar too(Gaddafi the gold Dinar and Saddam the Euro).
godwin says
Ya. This probably were the sparks for action by US leaders. If these 2 dictators had chosen to use currencies other than the US dollars, America would stand to lose billions n billions.
Jay Boo says
Obama and Hillary sealed the fate of four Americans in this hellhole.
Did they know too much inconvenient truth about the so-called ‘Freedom Fighters’ ?
Supposedly the US bombing missions were to protect civilians from Gadhafi.
Now the Muzzholes are butchering Christians.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/nothing-was-done-militia-blamed-for-benghazi-attack-moved-next-door-to-us/
moses says
Even though gadaffi ruled with an iron fist atleast Libya was peaceful. Then the west went and fucked up everything.Dictators are bad but Islamists are much worse.
Dracula says
There is a depressing pattern in Western interventionist policy to exacerbate the problem of despotic nations with majority Muslim populations by creating power vacuums all too eagerly occupied by theocratic tyrants.
The whole Western diplomatic world seriously needs reeducation. We cannot keep superimposing our liberal, democratic, secular values on all foreign cultures as if all mankind equally shares the same basic desires and expectations of a society or a culture. Our leaders are incapable (or just unwilling) to comprehend an alien belief system in which many fundamental goals to achieve in a civilization come from a completely inverted perspective.
Tribe is still of all-consuming importance to much of the indigenous population and the triumphalism in Islam, which commands their full confidence, will not be passively eroded by materialistic acquisitions like McDonald’s franchises, smartphones, and denim jeans.
Not everybody wants civil liberty, popular sovereignty, and economic freedom. Free values are unfortunately not human values. While in the West we (usually) tolerate those we hate so that we may enjoy our rights there are many cultures, Muslim ones especially so, where the populace are perfectly willing to surrender their rights if only it means those they hate are punished.
RonaldB says
“There is a depressing pattern in Western interventionist policy to exacerbate the problem of despotic nations with majority Muslim populations by creating power vacuums”
You’re completely correct, Dracula. It’s very sad for me, but the people who accuse the US and the West of malevolent interference in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries have a strong point.
We deposed a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran in 1953, in a CIA coup all but officially acknowledged. We replaced him with the Shah, who had his good points (women’s rights, alliance with Israel), but who made the mistake of relying on US support. The Shah was replaced by a brutal, Sharia-compliant Shi’ite government when peanut-brain Jimmy Carter pulled the rug out from the Shah. The US had no right whatsoever to topple a non-threatening government for geopolitical considerations.
Closer to our own time, George Bush replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was justified since the Taliban hosted an attack on the US, but tried to support a government in Afghanistan, which historically is a losing proposition. But, Bush also toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq, totally dismantling the security and control apparatus, opening the door wide to jihad murder. Frankly, I see no difference in this regard between Bush and Obama.
Under Obama we have the spectacle of Libya, and the US quasi-sponsorship of ISIS. Remember when Obama wanted to “punish” the Assad government for use of “weapons of mass destruction”. It was perfectly clear from the press releases that US air power would have been used to deal a crippling blow to the Syrian government. If it were not for Congressional resistance, ISIS would now completely control Syria. Incidentally, the bi-partisan moron, McCain, strongly supported US intervention in Syria.
Sometimes I think the main reason for all the hare-brained US interventions in Middle Eastern countries is to generate floods of Muslim refugees claiming sanctuary because they were vaguely associated with some faction allied with US forces at some point.
Your solution is by far the best: leave the Muslims alone in their own countries, and at all costs, keep them out of ours. We can admit immigrants based on personal characteristics best serving the US: IQ, past history, and commitment to a liberal government based on individual rights. This would seem to prima-facie leave out Muslims entirely.
mortimer says
The West will have to occupy these barbarians if we decide we should liberate them from genocidal maniacs.
The occupation will have to be ‘as long as necessary’…even 40 or 50 years until two generations of democratic people can establish a new free culture. Sharia law cannot be part of any of these new democracies…it will always lead straight back to dictatorship.
Dracula says
Colonial tutelage was not enough to prevent modern day Muslim countries once governed by imperial powers from developing within them popular movements to establish a theocratic state. Similarly, the efforts to reform Turkey into a democratic, secular republic now face a real threat from Neo-Ottoman sentiments as Robert Spencer often points out on this site.
Occupation is a waste of resources and time unless a permanently competitive alternative to Islam comes to the people from somewhere that their history and culture can hold up as valid. That’s tough because Islam plays very well to ancient social norms whether it’s in a position of strength or weakness. When Islam is in control, might makes right and Muslims are strong due to God’s patronage. When Islam is ruled over, the Ummah (a tribe) are the moral superiors of the kuffar that oppress them and anybody regardless of class, social status, race, etc. is welcome to join.
There should be myriads of alternatives that are at least less harmful than Islamic totalitarianism, but Islam itself will remain far harder to quash than the quasi-spiritual blood and land ideologies of fascist Europe and Imperial Japan.
Draki says
I’ve always seen America’s involvement in the Arab spring as not promoting democracy, but promoting islam and the splintering of nations. It’s probably a decent short term strategy of America’s to ruin nations by allowing islam and greed to fracture them, like Somalia.
SpiritOf1683 says
Its no different to what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islam was written into their constitutions at the insistence of the US, and it is hardly surprising because we in the entire West, which includes the US and the UK, have been spoonfed political correctness and moral relativism throughout the last 50 years, peddled the “Islam is a religion of peace” horsecrap, and sided with the terrorists every time they attack Israel for at least the last 30 years. The history of 1,400 years of Jihad and Sharia has taught them nothing whatsoever, and it doesn’t look like they’re ever going to learn either.
pongidae rex says
The sad and brutal fact is that dictators tend to be politically canny, shrewd and ruthless individuals. In contrast, the leasership of the west is carefully filtered to be palatable to an electorate of political neophytes and morons. So we get political imbeciles for leaders, but they are political imbeciles in control of huge power which they use like apes in the cockpit of a jetliner.
A red line should have been drawn around the Islamic world a century ago, and a strict hands-off, no immigration policy embraced. But it is too late for that now.
Spot On says
A year or so before the Libya war, there were media reports that Gaddafi said he was a major contributor to the French President’s political campaign. This attack on Libya may have been retribution to Gaddafi by European aristocrats fearing blackmail.
Before Europe attacked, there was no question in my mind that Libya would perish as we know it. Gaddafi was a bad guy that was taken out by the European bad guys and Obama helped. I didn’t see any good guys in this war.
Salah says
The West destroyed Libya because the West is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood thugs.
This terrorist organization wants to rule the Middle East. Their puppets in the Oval Office helped them rise to power in the so-called Arab Spring.
They ruled Tunisia, then were thrown out of power. They ruled Egypt, and they were thrown out of power in less than a year.
Libya is their last hope to remain in power in the MD. They will lose it too, but, thanks to the West, a lot of innocent people will have to pay the price.
We musn’t forget that most Arab countries have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. The West didn’t follow suit. Why? because the Muslim Brotherhood thugs are actually RULING many Western countries, including the USA.
apran says
It should be said “The west and the the muslims together destroyed Libya”.
Dave J says
The progressive, PC, multicultural ambitions of Western liberalism has a huge blind spot – not all peoples aspire to democracy and economic progress. A large part of the world rejects these ideas and militantly prefers to live in a paternalistic, faith based, xenophobic tribal bubble. For example, Boku Harem (literally, books forbidden) is violently opposed to any education of children except mindless Koran memorization.
These two visions are so broadly divergent that reconciliation is virtually impossible. Yet our uninformed idealism leads us to invite millions of such people into our home countries and then feign shock when they not only refuse to assimilate but attempt to reshape our culture into theirs. This leads to complaints of discrimination even when these immigrants are given priority benefits and free housing over native citizens. Then comes the backlash.
This policy was a huge mistake. In retrospect we should have isolated and quarantined these cultures until they catch up on reformation. But they are several centuries behind and we don’t have the patience. And so – la deluge.
Jen says
Thank you for writing this.
Nicu says
Ghaddafi have Lybia the highest standard in Africa !
He wanted to get away from the West !
That’s why he was killed !
Matthieu Baudin says
Libyans have consciences, motivations, opinions, prejudices and choices along with the rest of humanity. Some have taken the fundamentalist Jihadi route while others oppose it. These people are creating their own present and future. They are largely autonomous and have responsibility for their actions. This endless crowing about ‘western responsibility’ for anything under the sun unfortunately has a ready audience not only in the middle east but also throughout the ‘west’. Grow up everyone, the ‘west’ doesn’t run the worlds social upheavals via a remote control button.
Jen says
You should look at all aspects instead of ignoring the obvious. Writing about something isn’t ‘crowing.’ I’m sorry if your capacity for compassion is small and that only your own suffering within your own country is the only thing which bothers your conscience and not those of other countries whose suffering was exacerbated by western leadership and their interference, among other things. Including that of Christians who are being slaughtered by Muslims; of which there has been nowhere near enough coverage. Does that not really bother you much…? What are your religious beliefs? I’m not sure where you are from, but is it the US? Americans in particular have a bad reputation for crowing about how wonderful they are, not realising what their leadership has been doing behind the scenes. Or being aware of it, and still behaving like it’s no huge deal and crowing about themselves anyway. This is one reason why there has been much anti-American sentiment, even in other western countries. I live in NZ, and even here, in 2008-2009 in particular, I noticed an anti-American vibe because I lived with many Americans at the time, as well as other NZers. If you do happen to come from the US, it would be better you didn’t contribute to that stereotype of being so apparently insular. If from any other western country; the same. Though I don’t notice this as much among other westerners- it is mainly Americans who won’t acknowledge or are ignorant about what their leadership has been doing. For every action; there is a reaction- the inhabitants of non-western countries have a reason to be annoyed if people suffered because of it. The west isn’t the world, despite what it may feel to many westerners; especially those who haven’t explored much. ‘Growing up’ does often involve taking responsibility for things. They are talking about western leadership, not individuals within the west itself. You shouldn’t really have a problem with that; considering that western leadership has thrown westerners under the bus as well now, and left people to fend for themselves. You may find in the near future that you have a lot in common with those of non-western countries who have had their countries meddled with.
Matthieu Baudin says
Thanks Jen for putting in the effort to reply. The title of the article was ‘How the West Destroyed Libya’. It was clearly a lop sided, larger than life statement. The comments from Kepha below is a far more balanced appraisal than those from the Norwegians cited in the article. The ‘evil west’ is a default position and an ideological fixation of the ‘new left’ and it’s half thought out anti colonialist rhetoric. It is only by narrowly fixing Libyan people into voiceless victim roles that absolutist statements like ‘the west destroyed Libya’ can be made. Of course mistakes and misadventures are made in the foreign policies of any country and it’s useful for these to be analysed, learnt from and regretted. A further problem with the article was the ‘false choice’ offered between only two options – Pin Up Boy Ghaddafy and his ruthless private political party versus Libyan Violent Jihad. Once again, we only arrive at this ridiculous ‘false choice’ by assuming the Libyans are fragile people who are buffeted between outside forces, rather than acknowledging the obvious fact that they are the primary actors in the Libyan civil war and that the future will be largely their creation.
Kepha says
A very good comment. I’ve come to the conclusion that all governments–or lack thereof–are representative of the people, whether they intend to be so or not. Even a conquered people, as source of tribute and labor, is in something of a position to negotiate its contract with its new masters (the Roman Catholic church in Poland after WWII comes to mind). It is a rare situation in which a conqueror hopes to simply wipe out the population and start anew.
Kepha says
I dissent from a lot of what is written here.
Folks, consider Germany, Japan, and South Korea right after World War II as the West’s last colonial ventures–military occupation, restructuring, etc.
I agree that the Obama maladministration’s intervention in Libya and support of the Arab Spring was ill-advised, foolish, and uncalled for; even if I am a little more charitable about the Bush administration’s misadventure in Iraq and Afghanistan (sorry, folks, but Sadam Hussein had to be removed one way or another–and now even the NYSLImes has admitted that it was no lie about his seeking WMD and had already deployed sarin).
But I will not agree that Libya and Iraq would have remained stable had Qaddafi and Sadam Hussein been allowed to continue in power until the inevitable happened to them. The whole of the Arab world is inherently unstable (except, perhaps, for that little country which happens to have a very large number of “Arab” Jews–roughly half the population, I understand), thanks to a mixture of both careless Europeans playing with maps and crayons back in the late 19th century and during WWI and the very real pathologies inherent in Islam itself.
Further, I will affirm that countries plugging along with stable systems of enforced civil liberties (or, more accurately, traditions of government restraint) are the exceptions in human history, not the rule–and most of these have either traditions of the Reformed version of Protestant Christianity or the tutelage of powers with such traditions. On the other hand, you take a system like the Ottoman Empire, and it is nothing but corruption and torpor, that needs only a vigorous challenge somewhere to expose its internal rot–and the Ottomans appear to be the best that the Islamic world could manage on its own. Getting back to the North Atlantic world, I angrily dissent that our constitutional and republican politics depend on mere placating of a populace of political morons and knaves. A political leadership that understands that there are limits it cannot transgress and behaves accordingly is a great blessing; but a people that cannot understand that there are responsibilities and limits on what it can have as well as rights will sooner or later be compelled to accept a much harsher kind of government.
Much of America’s bungling since World War II can be traced to an utter indifference to disciplines such as ethnology, non-Western history, languages, and comparative theology (which can be done in ways other than the Armstrong-Esposito kind). Throw in a certain pseudo-Messianic arrogance about how history is inevitably moving in the direction of something like America as it is supposed to be (rather than actually is a lot of the time), and you have recipes for continuing foreign disasters.
I will note that as the USA went into the Iraq misadventure, our policy community assumed that the Iraqi people had had enough of tyranny and the adventures into which Sodom Hussein had led them, and would perhaps behave something like all those Hessians, Rhinelanders, Low Saxons, Swabians, and Bavarians who found themselves occupied by the West after WWII. That was a major miscalculation. But, similarly, we also assumed that a non-Stalniist Tito had brought some kind of acceptable national coherence to the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and a few others, too. What we discovered instead was that such non-coherent “nations” will not hold together except under a vicious thug-in-chief; and once the thug-in-chief ultimately dies, things will fall apart.
Hence, US foreign policy needs to be based on a frank realization that history is going to happen, human beings aren’t basically good (Jesus Christ, yes; Rousseau, no), and that the US is bound to face hostility from some and find communities of interest (including long-term ones) with others.
But a bigger issue is how to rejuvenate and recover the kind of political contract that gave us and nurtured our system of liberty under law. There is a major crisis in the West in that we no longer have in place the faith that nurtured liberty, but are now led by an elite that has a soft spot for totalitarian pipe dreams.
RonaldB says
Kepha, I’m always happy to see a posting from you, knowing it will be rational, whether or not I agree with you.
In this case, I’m mainly in disagreement.
“Sadam Hussein had to be removed one way or another–and now even the NYSLImes has admitted that it was no lie about his seeking WMD and had already deployed sarin).”
The question always is, “compared to what?” Why did Hussein have to be removed one way or another? The canard of “WMD” is a misnomer, as it refers to the WWI-era mustard gas, WWII-era sarin, and modern nuclear weapons in the same breath. In fact, we know that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the 1980’s. George Bush’s regime had to gin up the fable about Hussein seeking yellow-cake uranium oar to squeeze out a justification for the invasion.
Here is what the NT Times summarized the “WMD” program remnants that our troops found:
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
So, you can’t just say Saddam Hussein had to be removed one way or another: you have to show how his removal would leave the situation better for either the Iraqis or the US. It seems obvious that an active, expanding, proselytizing ISIS is far less desirable than the near-toothless Hussein at the end of his rule.
Suppose George Bush had actually been interested in a fact-based, rather than fantasy-based policy? He would have deposed Hussen, but left the mechanisms of control intact: basically, he would have replaced one dictator who was a thorn in the side of the US, with another dictator who knows the US can depose him as well. Not bad. But, what US interventions since the World War II era nation-building in Europe have ever turned out to be handled that rationally?
Right now, the Syrian government, the only real bulwark against ISIS, is hanging on by a threat, having escaped only by a hair a crippling blow by US forces at the command of Obama, egged on by John McCain.
The point being, that US foreign policy maneuvers are largely mishandled, ending in disasters, and we, and the people involved, are far better off without our intervention.
As far as your observation about a free people having to appreciate the responsibilities and limits of a representative, republic…I totally agree…except…
Let us not forget that as much as the founding fathers emphasized the necessity for an educated, classically liberal electorate, they set into place a structural balance of powers. The Senate represented the states, and the propertied (producer) classes. The House of Representatives represented to popular classes. Checks and balances abounded at all levels of government, balancing all types of interests.
Supreme court decisions, constitutional amendments, and presidential abuses of power, beginning with Abraham Lincoln, have eroded the checks and balances, turning our government into more of a democracy than a layered republic. So, our government now is far more dependent on the broader vision of an electorate than it was even when the electorate was more homogeneous, more educated, and more aware of the abuses of government. In other words, it is not just that we are lacking an elite that values liberty, but that we have discarded the structure that enforces the characteristics of a limited republic.
I agree with you about the inherent instability of Muslim societies, concluding perhaps that our objectives should be to keep the lid on dire dangers, like the Iranian nuclear program, but other than that, not be too quick to squeeze out short-term benefits. For example, to what extend is ISIS really a danger to the US, if you take away from the fact they are a rallying point for our already-too-large Muslim population? If the US will take in the Christian and (perhaps) Yazidi populations, and just leave them to their devices, without allying ourselves any further, will we be worse off?
A big question is, should we support the Kurdish fighters? Well, it depends if giving them weapons and some support makes them allies. Imagine if ISIS were to run over Kurdish Iraq: would we feel obligated to bring in millions of Kurdish Muslims, which would be another major disaster to the US.
Anushirvan says
In the Middle East,
dictatorship = stability
Take dictatorship away, and you get bloody chaos.
Asian Crusader says
Obama’s first interview upon taking office was with Al-Arabiya.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/27/65087.html
The two principal aims of Obama’s puppet masters were always (1) to undermine America and (2) to help Muslims subjugate hated Christianity.
Obama personally is clearly motivated by a deep hatred of what he thinks of as “Christianity,” “white” “western” culture, and America itself. Like many people in such situations, Obama never “got over” the double abandonment by his father (whoever his real father was), and his mother.
Conversely, all the good things in Obama’s life – elite education, freedom to practice homosexuality, breathtaking political success thanks to a pre-existing communist machine – were GIFTS handed to him free of charge by Western culture. (Yes, communism is part of Western culture, although we would be much better off without it.)
It is the unresolved teenage resentment of having to rely on gifts from the “adults” that is at the root of Obama’s psychopathology.
Mike says
We have no shortage of people living in western countries trashing their own culture and willing to see Islam gain a strong foothold in their country, we even have leaders holding these attitudes. We should forget about muslim violence and unrest in their own countries and instead address the problems with muslims at home. The longer we wait, the harder and more violent it will be.
The Muslims must just love the large numbers of dhimminis they see in western countries, it surely encourages them to get even more aggressive, kick the front door in and the whole rotten structure will collapse.