The head of the regime, in his Nobel acceptance speech said some things worth taking note of.
“Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, and children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
Once again, there are half-truths and distortions in his rhetoric. Let us take a few moments and consider what he is saying in plain English.
-He is claiming that external wars lead to internal conflicts (a half-truth). He does not mention the issues that led to external wars or that internal conflicts often erupt when the government is tyrannical, governs in disregard of the rule of law or engages in unjust actions.
-’Failed States?’. I am not aware of any State that has failed during his watch.
-He is saying that secession movements are on the rise (half-truth). He goes on and claims that secession movements trap the civilians in the chaos. (this is a distortion). Secession movements arise when the people want to leave the oppressive government. When rulers are just, there is little need for secession movements.
-By the structure of his statement he lumps secession movements, insurrections, and failed states together. What does he mean by this? Is he forecasting the failure of a nation? After he lumps them together, he implies that this group has killed more civilians than soldiers. Since he gives no reference points, it is difficult to discern what part of the world he is in reference to. In the 20th century, more people died at the hands of their governments than did any secession movement, insurrection or failure of a nation. This is outright distortion of history.
-When he went on to further blame those movements for the source of conflict, destroying the economy, tearing up civil society, etc., I thought he was making reference to his regime which has wrecked the American economy with the largest debt it has ever had in history, not to mention increasing unemployment and oppressive taxation. His policies have done more to destroy civil society than any secession group has. His support for abortion has scared and killed more than any insurrection. His taxation has done more to send businesses offshore into a refugee status than any movement in the empire has. I suspect that this last statement was more a denial of what his own policies have created. It is easier to blame others than to assume responsibility for it himself.
It is clear that he does see secessionist groups and secession as a threat. It is ironic that he identified them as a threat rather than the oppressive government policies which remove freedoms, steal peoples livelihood, and promote involuntary servitude in the form of military draft. His policies directly led to the jihad at Fort Hood by choosing to turn a blind eye to significant threats within his own camp.
It was also entertaining how he referred to “require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war”. In this statement, he is advocating a new definition of a ‘just war”.He knows that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT just wars. Rather than recognize the immorality of that, he wants to change the definition of what a “just war” is. A just war is when a people are defending their homeland from invaders or threats. Just wars do not involve invading other nations. He continues on with his rhetoric and twists the meanings of wars to make it sound like ‘war’ is a moral act and a moral imperative.
Fellow Southrons, his speech provides evidence of someone who twists meanings of words and hides the true meanings behind them. It is also evidence that he is feeling uneasy about secessionist groups. He knows the fragile condition that things are in. His choice of words is revealing about his state of mind filled with denials and projections.
It would not be a far jump for someone thinking this way to burn the Reichstag and then blame it on one of the groups he labeled as the bad guys. He is already denying that his regime destroyed the economy, that he has unjust wars raging and that his policies are destructive to industry and the economy.
Liberty for Texas and the South!
J MurrahCurrent Affairs, failed economic policy of obama, manipulation of obama, Nobel prize speech, Obama, obama and secession, Political Well Being, secession groups