Hussein Obama and 8 years of difficult relations with political Islam

The most powerful in the history of the Hussein after Hussein Ibn Ali, the grandson of the Islamic prophet, passes the reins of a superpower is a traditional Christian who stands with anti-Muslim slogans. The nervousness of the three million Muslims living in the United States, and another 1.2 billion spread throughout the world, is obvious. But not to worry! In the United States domestic and foreign policy “system” is not depending on the level of intellectual development of its presidents.


Isn’t that during the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1978) was created the Islamist monster in the form of “al-Qaeda” (the terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx.ed.) in the heart of Central Asia to strike a blow for progressive forces in the region and cornered the USSR? The same system in the same year put on the Vatican throne of the pole Karol Wojtyla, the Catholic fundamentalist right-wing designed to perform in Eastern Europe the same task (and what is the role of Pope Francis?). So, Washington not only uses religious fundamentalism to achieve their strategic goals, but also churns out leaders and radical groups in those countries where capitalist reality has driven them into a corner. Society in these countries was moving towards secularism and modern devices (not on the Western model, as claimed by uninformed people).


Obama needs to retouch image of the United States, tarnished by his predecessor. In his report, read in 2009 in the Egyptian al-Azhar University, stated the following: the United States will continue to use Islamism (the fundamentalist current right-wing in Islam), leaving on the side of social-political major secular and progressive parties in dozens of Muslim countries. Sending a signal “reconciliation” US “Muslims” —instead of having to go to some neutral place in Indonesia, the main Muslim country in the world, chose a hotbed of Sunni fundamentalism, where the authorities were “Muslim brotherhood”. Not to mention the fact that Egypt was the only Arab country that signed a peace Treaty with Israel. Convinced that, in contrast to “al-Qaeda”, “Muslim brotherhood” (a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx.ed.)know how to save face, he in 2012, used them to bring down the Arab spring in Egypt and Tunisia, the members of which acted under the slogans of political and economic democracy, not to return in the twilight of the middle Ages. Another example of his political ingenuity was the creation of ISIS (a terrorist organization banned in Russia — approx.ed.). Due to the veto by Russia and China on the proposal for US military intervention-the UN in Syria, the group appeared in Iraq.


Vengeance TV channels showed their atrocities and claimed that the headquarters of ISIS is in Syria. Without the mandate, neither the Syrian government nor the UN, Obama finally made a military intervention in Syria (once the goal was achieved, immediately stop the stream of frames, where ISIS militants have beheaded people!).


US policy in the region aims to overthrow the secular leaders and put in their place theocratic regimes.


Obama began his presidency in 2009 with bombing weak, but had the strategic importance of the countries which by a strange coincidence, was “Muslim”.


The novelty of the fighting was to use the drones, which have reduced the loss of American troops. Why America’s new mothers like Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan), who, after the death of his sons protested against militarism? In the age of Obama, American drones have killed thousands of civilians in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Syria, leaving millions of people homeless.

Obama is in turmoil


In an interview with the Atlantic, Obama, always avoid terms like “Islamic terrorism”, instead, used the phrase “fanatical terrorism.” Given the fact that he is leaving the White house, it indicates the following:


1. He regretted that Muslim leaders continue to impose on US the responsibility for all the ills of the Middle East. And Obama is right. Those who use anti-Marxist thesis of Mao TSE Tung on the three worlds, on the North exploiting the South, hiding the division of social classes on both sides of the world and free from responsibility for the crimes and excesses of the capitalist dictatorship in the South. For example, the “refugee crisis” that led to the deaths of thousands of people, was planned by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, although they are unlikely to have succeeded without the complicity of France and Germany.


2. Obama identifies the radical ruling circles with ordinary Muslims (who are unable to adhere or not to adhere to rituals) and therefore cannot find the answer to the question “why people resort to terrorism?”. It is as if the Iraqis asked, “why do the common people of Spain and France subjected them to the bombing”.


3. Speaking in defense of religion, Obama has denied the connection between religion and terror. Which pages are read from the Torah the Israeli military in combat positions?


4. Obama believes that the “pathology of violence,” mostly affecting Arab youth and non-Muslims of Africa or Central Asia. This is a very simplistic approach that ignores the fact that the Taliban, Chechen and Bosnian fighters are not Arabs. And by the way, if young Iraqi Arabs wanted revenge for the murder of about three of their compatriots killed in the massive bombings and the economic blockade to which they were subjected, the US and its allies from 1991 to the present time, the world would be a real hell. Islamic terrorism is not the result of Islamophobia and imperialist wars.


5. He is also right in arguing that Israel is just one of the problems of the Middle East, but is mistaken in believing that “Muslim” intellectuals need to exercise prudence on this subject and to prove their ability and will to renewal of Islam. Mr. Obama, addressing the problem of fundamentalism is to first separate religion from political activities, to emphasize the identity of the “civil character” of the people of their religion, which should be a personal issue, not allowing any invasion from the outside.


No interest is to end religious terrorism, and also to stop the alleged ongoing war against it. The thesis of the “clash of civilizations” will continue to work for those in charge of the parties to the collision.