I don’t see any thing new in Obama’s speech, more than that, anyone who kept up with his campaign he/she will notes that this speech is a collection of what he had said before in his way to the White House, but how ever I have liked his choosing of some words. I mean in that Violence and Extremist instead of Terrorism and Terrorist.
The meaning of Terrorism and Terrorist has misinterpreted by the whole world because of the irrational usage by the former President of USA George Bush along with news networks and Hollywood movies, Muslims are always the terrorist, but if there is any act of violence made by a non Muslim group, media didn’t refer to them as terrorists, like the shooting in The Massereene Barracks occurred on 7 March 2009, the shooting that the Real IRA (which is considered as a terrorist organization by UK) was behind it. If you read the article at the news.bbc.co.uk you will not find any indication for terrorism by the writer neither the politicians that he quoted from. But if you search in there website about (terrorist bombing) for example, you will find tens of articles about Muslim organizations described as terrorists many times. Actually, it doesn’t has to be a Muslim to figure this misinterpretation out and it doesn’t has to be a non Muslim to know that setting bombs in innocent people is an act of terror.
Obama has Changed these words with new ones Violence and Extremist. I believe these words are more accurate, because they have already been used and people around the world understand them very will. Violence used for every act that aims to hurt any creature, this means that armies, police, militias, gangs, family hood (domestic violence), T.V and others are in this category and we “the public opinion” understand this clearly. Extremists is not a word that used just for religion but for politics too, it used also in USA, UK and every place in the earth, unlike terrorism and terrorist, they have never used before in this contest and there is no definition for it yet. So, everyone explained them as he liked, got advantage from them when ever he needed them the most, but worst than that, invading countries under it’s cover.
Finally, I do admit that his speech is a historical one, only if it followed by actions. Because we, Arabian people have fed up with speeches with out actions. SO, Mr. President act or your speech will not worth a penny.
I see his speech more emotional and doesn’t contain a clear view of point, how would Mr, Obama like the Palestinian act against Occupation? By not use Violence?, so tell me, If some one Occupied my home, destroyed every hope and dream of a better life, I should not go for Violence!!!.
The real change is not when they replace terrorism with Violence, the real change is when they acknowledge the existence of an Occupation and admit the right to defend your self against it = “Resistance”.
anyway, Welcome Khaldoun, I’m happy to be the 1st commenter on your blog, and welcome to GV also 😉 .
words are dengerous and we all saw how BUSH entered Iraq and Afganestan under it’s cover, and how Muslims and Arabian people eventhough if they are not Muslims effected by these words. using deffetent words by US President means western media will use his words and this is a change, i’m with you that it’s not the ultimate change, but it’s a great one if (as i said in my post) followed by ACTIONS
Congrats on the new blog!
Thanx Solana…..
Well done, keep those posts coming;)
[…] Khaldoun Jarbou too wasn't impressed but writes: I don’t see any thing new in Obama’s speech, more than […]
[…] Khaldoun Jarbou too wasn’t impressed but writes: I don’t see any thing new in Obama’s speech, more than […]
Nice first pots man!
I bookmarked this page. I really like your site. I’ll bookmark the other pages when I have time 🙂
[…] السوري خلدون جربوع[بالإنكليزية] فلم يكن هو الأخر متأثراً ولكنه كتب […]