For reference here is a list of Muslim majority countries.

The media narrative is that Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Oman, Yemen, Tunisia and Egypt are experiencing uprisings because their people want “freedom”. While this might be true to some extent; freedom has a completely different meaning to Muslims.

The uprisings are a result of many factors largely economic in nature, but there are many factors which are a direct result of Islam. Islam doesn't allow for freedom in the western since. Most majority Muslim countries have adopted some form of Sharia Law. Sharia Law is very oppressive in nature. Sharia courts issue punishments, which by western standards, would be considered cruel and unusual, to say the least. Still the majority of the world's Muslims agree that Sharia Law is the best and most pure form of law.

With Sharia Law there are quite a few issues when it comes to freedom. Sharia Law is more than just a system of law as westerners understand law. Western laws are generally applied on an individual basis, Sharia Law is applied to every part of life. Sharia is an entire system of religious laws and governmental laws simultaneously. Think about that for a minute, what if government, any government, could claim that their actions are directly mandated by God. That's not to say you have rights ordained by God, but that man (government) can do whatever to you in God's name. Doesn't that sound a little scary to you? Now you understand why the founders of the United States of America stated that congress is not to establish a national religion.

In short Islam doesn't lend itself to a free society, in the western since, because the limits imposed on personal freedom under Sharia Law are so overbearing. Let's say that a true Muslim democracy emerges. Even if elections in this Muslim nation were held; what would one vote to change? The only thing you could do would be to vote for government officials who would enforce Sharia Law to a greater or lesser degree. Islam binds its followers to Sharia Law, there is no way to opt-out.

Libya has been under the control of Gaddafi for just under 42 years. How does one man keep his power so long and in a place that is considered largely tribal? The most glaring factor among modern dictatorships is that they are mostly in majority Muslim countries. It sounds strange to say this but Islam works well with dictatorships because those who practice Islam tend to be numb to the kinds of atrocities that dictators commit. After all, offenders of Sharia Law are often sentenced to atrocious forms of punishment.

- 2001-SEP: Nigeria: A teenage single mother, Bariya Ibrahim Magazu claimed at trial that she was raped by three men. The court assumed that she was guilty, because she could not prove that her father pressured her to engage in sexual activity with the men. She was found guilty of two offenses: having pre-marital sex, and bringing false charges against the men that she claimed were responsible. Her sentence was 180 lashes. 5 "When nongovernmental groups ramped up pressure to free the girl, the government immediately carried out the sentence, ignoring a promised appeal process. The local authorities said they wanted to put an end to the controversy."

- 2001-DEC: Sudan: An 18 year-old pregnant woman, Abok Alfa Akok, was accused by her husband of adultery. She claimed that she had been raped. The man co-accused with Abok was not tried due to lack of evidence. She was tried, even though the country claims that Sharia would not be applied to non-Muslims. In Sudan, a married person found guilty of adultery is executed by stoning; an unmarried person receives 100 lashes. She had no lawyer, and was unaware of her rights during the trial. She could not speak or understand Arabic, the language of the court. The Court of Appeal in Southern Darfur overturned the death sentence and sent the case back to the lawyer court which set punishment at 75 lashes. By immediately executing the sentence, she was denied her right to obtain legal advice and/or an launch an appeal prior to the beating.

- 1996-MAR: Afghanistan: Some strict interpretations of Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28.

- 1996-NOV: Afghanistan: Under the previous, Taliban, regime, a woman, Nurbibi, 40, and a man Turylai, 38, were stoned to death in a public assembly using palm-sized stones. They were found guilty of non-marital sex. Turylai was dead within ten minutes, but Nurbibi had to be finished off by dropping a large rock on her head. Mr. Wali, head of the Office for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prohibition of Vice expressed satisfaction with the execution: "...I am very happy, because it means that the rule of Islam is being implemented." These executions (as well as hand amputations for convicted thieves) are regarded as religious occasions and are not normally viewed by non-Muslims.

Just something to keep in mind when you see news stories about how the people of Libya or any other majority Muslim nation are fighting for freedom. Freedom, as US citizens are used to it, is still a very long way from becoming the norm in the Middle East. Still any move towards freedom is a good move no matter how small.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Here is a link to the president's speech from the White House website.

I'm concerned with this speech for three main reasons.

(1) Why did it take so long to address the nation about a "war" / "Kinetic Military Action" / "Time Limited Scope Limited Military Action"?

(2) Why can't Obama give a speech without referring to some "straw-man"?

First off, If regional stability was one of the goals from the beginning, why was that not pointed out by anyone in the administration 9 days ago?

In the speech; Obama goes on about how there was going to be a slaughter and we had to get involved to stop it. This too is a legitimate reason to intervene, but it makes less since than the first reason I listed considering that there are people in the Middle East being slaughtered by other dictatorships even as you read this. Why are we not involved there as well?

Secondly, the straw-man argument is one of Obama's most used forms of misrepresentation. The straw-man argument is used to purposely misrepresent those with opinions which don't align with Obama's.

These quotes are from Obama's address to the nation on Monday 03-28-11

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.

Who exactly doubted that we could create a no-fly zone over Libya? Even Gadaffi's opposition knew we could do that!

Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.

Obama so eloquently lays down both extremes in this situation so he can casually walk down the middle and claim that he's doing it right.

I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.

This last quote is unbelievable. Who are "those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through storms..."? The Secretary of State doesn't know who "those" are, top officials at The Pentagon don't know who "those" are. There is a reason that we are hesitant to arm "those". Nobody knows who "those" are! But Obama can somehow see into the hearts of "those" and tell that they have "the same core principles" as most Americans? This is a classic textbook example of sophistry.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I wonder if the anyone in the White House can tell us what's going on? I know one thing, they don't want to call it a war.

In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?

In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. "I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone," Rhodes said. "Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end."

Government officials sound like Beaky Buzzard, "Nope, Nope, it's not a war Nope..."

U.S. officials avoid describing the operation as a war. White house press secretary Jay Carney said it was "a time-limited, scope-limited military action."

Somewhere someone came up with the term "kinetic military action", followed by "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." Are you kidding me? The Obama White House is coming up with it's own form of political Pig Latin. We can't say "War on Terror" we have to say "Overseas Contingency Operation". Now we can't even say war at all, it's not a war it's a "kinetic military action" or a "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." We have a war being directed by individuals who are too scared to call it a war. This does not sit well with me.

The official response to the question of whether or not the action in Libya is a war begins with "I think what we are doing is..." One of the stated goals is protecting the Libyan people. Which Libyan people and protect them from what? This is absurd. We are going to kill the Libyans who are attacking the other Libyans; all of this is done to protect Libyans and avert a humanitarian crisis... Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes is not sure what we are doing! It sounds like we're intervening in a civil war, but we can't use the word war.

The confusion surrounding military intervention in Libya is amazing.

The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.

France has opposed handing control to NATO because of Arab skepticism about the alliance, which is perceived as being dominated by the US. Paris would prefer the current coalition of France, Britain and the US to keep political control of the mission, with operational support from NATO, according to sources quoted by Reuters. Turkey, an alliance member which sees itself as a bridge to the Muslim world, is opposing NATO control of the operation. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that the United Nations should be in charge of an entirely humanitarian operation in Libya.

Britain and Italy want the alliance to be in charge of the operation, however. Rome has threatened to restrict access to its air bases, which are crucial to the mission, if NATO does not take over control. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has suggested that Britain or France could also take control of the mission, but some NATO officials doubt if either country could handle the operation by itself, according to Reuters.

That's not what Obama told the American people last Sunday 03/19/11.

I’m also proud that we are acting as part of a coalition that includes close allies and partners who are prepared to meet their responsibility to protect the people of Libya and uphold the mandate of the international community.

I’ve acted after consulting with my national security team, and Republican and Democratic leaders of Congress. And in the coming hours and days, my administration will keep the American people fully informed. But make no mistake: Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.

I don't really know what to say at this point. "World Leaders" are so hamstrung over the political implications of their actions they are not leading.

A war is started with no clear goal and nobody wants to take responsibility for it.

WHO'S ON FIRST!

Obama has said, "It's time for Qaddafi to go." The only problem is that UN resolution 1973 (the resolution that covers this current military operation) "does not explicitly call for the removal of Col Muammar Gaddafi".
Adm. Mike Mullen: U.S. Mission In Libya 'Limited'

Still, the top U.S. military officer said the goals of the international campaign are "limited" and won't necessarily lead to the ousting of Gadhafi.

So where are we now? Our mission is to try and protect civilians... until sometime later... We aren't going to have any boots on the ground. What if ground support is needed for air attacks?

Obama once gave a speech where he referred to what previous leaders have said. He reminded people that they were "just words, just speeches" with that Obama Echo (no-matter where he is).

Saturday night at a gala for the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Obama said to frequent applause, "Don't tell me words don't matter! 'I have a dream.' Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words, just speeches!"

Obama has now given a speech in which he said, "It's time for Qaddafi to go". The problem is that he has not taken the steps necessary for this to come to fruition. What is the world to think?

I know that this has been pointed out before, but what happens when after all of the bombing Gadaffi is still in power. Now that the UN is heading this, what direction is it going in?

March 19, 2011
Remarks by the President on Libya

I am deeply aware of the risks of any military action, no matter what limits we place on it. I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice that I make lightly. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy, and his forces step up their assaults on cities like Benghazi and Misurata, where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government.

We have now committed US troops to a conflict with no clear goals or real stated outcome. We have a US president who has said that we have to stop tyrants from attacking their own people. That's a pretty dangerous thing to say considering that the Middle East is filled with tyrants who kill their own people.

I'm not trying to just rail on Obama but come on; the left touted Obama as the smartest president in decades. I don't see it.

I think those on the left are like someone looking at modern art. Most modern art is not "art". I'm sorry, but if someone can make modern art by accident --it's not art. Still there are those who look at some modern art and see brilliance, even when there is none. I think Obama is the modern art president. You have a bunch of people looking at him and trying to figure out what he's thinking. He's either a genius, or he has no idea what he's doing, maybe he's just light on his feet. Judging by the way he has handled the Egypt situation and now the Libya situation; it's looking more and more like Obama doesn't know what he's doing.

Obama's stance on any given subject is "subjective" to the extent that he can't be pinned to any position on any subject. Is that really a good quality in a president?

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

If Libya is really causing oil prices to rise, why are we not doing something about it? All of the Sunday Morning talk shows are abuzz with people talking of how an increase in the price of oil could hurt our chances of recovery, as if we didn't know. If Libya is indeed the cause of high prices (as Obama suggests) why is Washington sitting on it's hands? Does anyone really think that UN sanctions are going to effect Gadaffi?

Perhaps it's our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates projecting American weakness? Robert Gates warned against a no-fly zone.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague told the House of Commons Monday that "we are working closely with partners on a contingency basis on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution and an appropriate legal basis."

But U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned last week that imposing a no-fly zone would amount to an act of war because "a no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya" to destroy its air defenses. He also cautioned that an attack on Libya could drag the U.S. military into another conflict, even as nearly 150,000 troops continue to battle in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, are we waiting on the UN and the Europeans to act? The British seem worried by the lack of a UN resolution. I suppose the British want to avoid looking "Imperial". Opps the British pretty much ruled the world at one point. Come on...

It would be no different if the US were to act alone. Could anyone really mount a good argument that acting in this situation would be a bad idea? I mean really, no silly "World Court" stuff, I mean morally. It's Muammar Gaddafi we're talking about here and he's ordering the killing of his own people by air strikes!

Are we (the US) so morally defunct that we can't make a good claim for ousting Muammar Gaddafi? The rebels that we are "backing" apparently have the moral authority to try and oust Gaddafi. Think about that for a minute.

Does this mean that any US interests overseas could really be on their own? We really shouldn't be getting in their business right? Remember, Gates said as much.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.