Intent by relativityonline.com
We've often heard it said: "He says one thing and does another." Quite recently President Obama has made statements about human rights that raise very serious questions about their true meaning and intent. It's absolutely amazing how he is able to make such statements that clearly are a direct contradiction of his personal actions involving this very important moral issue. Just consider his words relative to human rights versus his specific actions.
"There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." That's what President Obama said in an address in Thailand on November 19, 2012. He made that statement with reference to the Israeli/Gaza conflict and the fact that Hamas was launching rockets into cities in Israel. Of course, as expected, he didn't mention any actions on the part of the government of Israel that may have prompted the attacks by the Gaza militants.
On September 26, 2012 he told the UN General Assembly: "There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents." The majority of members of that international body must have been stunned at those words as most of them are, no doubt, fully aware that Mr. Obama has been conducting a program in which drones have killed many innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
This is simply astounding. By those explicit words in the two statements President Obama has just made the case for bringing a complete end to the drone programs that he has been directing; those programs in which drones have been continuously launched by the U.S. Air Force and the CIA and have been raining down hellfire missiles on nations, from outside their borders, upon both suspected enemies of the U.S. as well as innocent men, women and children.
Can it be that Mr. Obama has suddenly become very attentive to the mounting criticism that has been raining down on him by respected journalists and humanitarian organizations around the world, demanding that these drone attacks that are killing innocent civilians must, in the name of humanity, be brought to an end? Could it be that he has taken those harsh criticisms to heart and decided to either eliminate these programs entirely or to use them in only the most extremely necessary cases where civilians would not be subjected to attacks?
Or is it, rather, the same old message that he brings out each and every time to defend Israel's latest eruption of brutality against the city and people of Gaza? By now the world has heard enough of that biased, indefensible interpretation of human rights in which missiles raining down on civilians and the killing of innocents apply to Israel exclusively and not to other countries and people.
There is a way by which these questions about Mr. Obama's remarks and intent can be addressed and, perhaps, resolved. What we need is to have a world respected journalist with impeccable credentials come forward and request an interview with the president in order to clarify his remarks and their exact meaning.
While I could name several highly respected journalists that could conduct such an interview, let's leave that decision open for the time being. Right now let's set down the following specific questions that this journalist should put to the president. You will notice that I show no response from the president on any of the questions. That's because it's anyone's guess as to what he would say, in that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to defend an indefensible position.
Interviewer: Mr. President, recently, you have made this statement for all the world to hear: "There's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." Please tell the American people exactly what you mean by those remarks?
Interviewer: now when you use the words, "no country on earth" do you mean just that; that no country including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia should have to tolerate missiles raining down on them? And, if that is so, why is it that very thing happening even as we speak?
The Interviewer: in your mind is there any difference between the safety and security of the people of the four countries that I have just identified and, say, the people of Israel or America? Should people of all countries be given the same protection from the missile attacks of which you spoke?
Interviewer: well then, why does it seem to be o.k. for the citizens of those four countries to be subjected to missile attacks launched by U.S. drones while you have stated that those same kinds of attacks must not be tolerated by the people of Israel? Is there some kind of a double standard in play here in which there are different rules for different countries?
1 | 2