Obama's Cairo speech

[Peter Presland]

Seems to me this speech deserves serious attention. Not because it signalled substantive change in the underlying Deep State agenda of US/NATO global dominance but rather for its contradictions and its signposting of major changes in US / Israeli relations. I've seen a lot of confused and contradictory commentary about it. Praise from surprising quarters - Gilad Azmon for example:

. . . as much as Obama seems to succumb to the Zionist narrative, he doesn't stop himself from the necessary equation between the Jewish Holocaust and the ongoing Palestinian holocaust that is committed by the Jewish state in the name of the Jewish people.

"Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust", says the president, but he then continues, "on the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

I think that this doesn't leave a room for a doubt. President Obama seems to realise what is going on. He knows about the humiliation, he knows about the starvation, he knows about Israelis using WMDs against civilian population. He for the first time promises one billion and a half Muslims around the world that America will not turn its backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

The president has still long way to go. And yet, President Obama has made a major step in the last few days. He is now marching America towards humanism. He reclaims the American ideology of liberty. I salute the man, I salute the great intellect, I salute the humanist.** Gladly I am to admit that God blessed America. But someone better take very good care of the safety of its president. He has some fierce and relentless enemies out there. And as we know, they do not stop in red!

.... and justified withering contempt for statements such as this in relation to alleged Palestinian terrorim:

"Violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."

One need not be a nonviolent activist to hear the wisdom of Barack Hussein Obama's words, especially as American drones continue to kill innocent Afghans or Pakistanis.

[Peter Presland]

Interesting post on the speech from Washington's Blog' too:

Obama Admits US Involvement in Iran Coup in 1953, But Doesn't Admit American Involvement in False Flags

Obama has admitted that the U.S. was involved in the Iranian coup in 1953.
I applaud the president for admitting this fact.

When will the U.S. admit that the U.S. was not only "involved", but - as documented by the New York Times - Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay)?
And when will America admit that - as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence - that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
And when will we admit that - as confirmed by recently declassified documents - in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings?

Because the important admission is not that the U.S. helped with a coup, but that America and virtually all other powerful nations throughout history have used "false flag terror" as means to political ends.

[Peter Lemkin]

Interesting post on the speech from Washington's Blog' too:

Obama Admits US Involvement in Iran Coup in 1953, But Doesn't Admit American Involvement in False Flags

Obama has admitted that the U.S. was involved in the Iranian coup in 1953.
I applaud the president for admitting this fact.

When will the U.S. admit that the U.S. was not only "involved", but - as documented by the New York Times - Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay)?
And when will America admit that - as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence - that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
And when will we admit that - as confirmed by recently declassified documents - in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings?

Because the important admission is not that the U.S. helped with a coup, but that America and virtually all other powerful nations throughout history have used "false flag terror" as means to political ends.

The Iran admission was unique - no other President or Cabinet level person has ever admitted as much - and it was done as a false-flag op [along with minor participation by the British and some Iranians]. The speech was, I hear, vetted by many to most Agencies of Govt. Hard to believe the CIA signed-off on it...but maybe. Anyway, for this kind of admission that could be viewed by many on the right and 'behind the curtain' as sufficient to terminate the Presidency with extreme predjudice when the proper moment arrives..... His speech while flawed, did break some new ground. He used the word occupation for Israel pver the Palastinians and a half-hearted and half-way mention of the settlements. His quoting of the Koran has already confirmed the ultra-Right's worst fears and the New York Post said he was appeasing terrorists with his speech. Hardly. Wouldn't it be a suprise if he harbored a plan for change in office - as JFK went through. I would predict the same outcome, sadly. On far too many issues of great import and on too many choices of those he has surround him, he seems firmly in the grip of the Deep Political Establishment. One can only hope he awakens....but I doubt it.

[Peter Presland]

Good bit of analysis there Peter.

I must admit to thinking the same thing about the likely consequences for Obama if he does undertake 'change in office' so-to-speak and is judged to be in breach of the Faustian bargain that got him both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency itself.

In that event, those on the other side of that bargain have a problem though. Another 'lone assassin' ? - taking the death-toll of in-office US presidents from 9 to 11%? a plane crash maybe? - but aren't they becoming just a wee bit obvious by now ?

OTOH, with the convergence of population growth, climate-change and peak just-about-everything problems coinciding with near total US/NATO global military dominance (which I judge unlikely to be surrendered under ANY circumstances) together with US economic bankruptcy, those on the other side of that bargain probably couldn't give a toss about the credibility niceties of any attempted assassination narrative.

[Magda Hassan]

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, where, in 1954, Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon organized a series of terrorist attacks.
These attacks were intended to give the USA an excuse for a policy of trying to undermine the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser.
I am grateful for the hospitality of the people of Egypt.
I bring a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
Jewish communities do not necessarily send this greeting.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in the Pentagon's desire to grab the oil in various Moslem countries.
Violent extremists, reportedly paid by the CIA, have exploited tensions among a small but potent minority of Muslims.
The attack of September 11th, 2001 has led some in my country to view the Pentagon as inevitably hostile to human rights.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims.
If we are going to change the boundaries of countries such as Pakistan, we need a few Moslem allies.
As a boy, I spent several years in Moslem Indonesia, where my mother may, or may not, have been an agent of the CIA.
It was our lot that toppled Sukarno.
Islam carried the light of learning through many centuries.
It was Muslim communities that developed algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islam has demonstrated the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
You may wonder why the Pentagon has backed leaders who have wanted to keep Muslims backward.
Was it President Carter who built up the mujahideen in Afghanistan?
Is America the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire?
The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known.
Think of the Vietnam War.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals.
We want oil pipelines, military bases, profits from heroin and valuable minerals.
Let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on 9 11.
And al Qaeda is said to be the CIA.
Ideally, none of us should tolerate these 'CIA-Pentagon' extremists. They have killed in many countries.
Jewish settlements? Let's agree to keep the ones that already exist.
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/06/ob...cairo.html

[David Guyatt]

My take on Obama is he talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.

Talk is cheap. Action is what he needs to take and thus far he keeps retreating from it.

Assuming he ever intended to take action in the first place anyway.

[Mark Stapleton]

My take on Obama is he talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.

Talk is cheap. Action is what he needs to take and thus far he keeps retreating from it.

Assuming he ever intended to take action in the first place anyway.

It's starting to look that way David.

So far no reaction from the Obama administration on Netanyahu's reply to Obama's Cairo speech:

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?optio...%3A53%3A41

Netanyahu was short on concessions and long on conditions. A demilitarised Palestine bereft of sovereignty makes me think the two state solution can't work. And he ruled out a settlement freeze to boot. Obama has elicited no landmark shift in the Israeli position at all.

In the absence of a definitive response to Netanyahu, Obama's Cairo effort will be regarded as just a lot of fluff.