Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

[johnnycakes]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya



"Obama is a good man, but he's under the control of bad people"

Right. And all the other (white) presidents were BAD men under the control of bad people.

I do feel a little queasy about the paramilitary uniforms the NOI people wear and the very close resemblance that meeting has to services at many black churches.

Does the NOI hold prayer services in Arabic as required by Islam?

and does Louis Farrakhan straighten his hair?

[johnnycakes]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

For those who may want a good understanding of the actions taken against Libya I offer this commentary.
Warning: this comes from ZNET and may be quite different from what you already believe if you get your information from TV or regular corporately owned sources which do not tell the truth.. The article will, however, provide you with incontrovertible information you should use to compare with what you've heard and seen on TV and from the (lying) U.S. government.


Stop Bombing Libya
By Marjorie Cohn

Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Marjorie Cohn's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace

Since Saturday night, the United States, France, and Britain have been bombing Libya with cruise missiles, B-2 stealth bombers, F-16 and F-15 fighter jets, and Harrier attack jets. There is no reliable estimate of the number of civilians killed. The U.S. has taken the lead in the punishing bombing campaign to carry out United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

The resolution authorizes UN Member States “to take all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The military action taken exceeds the bounds of the “all necessary measures” authorization.

“All necessary measures” should first have been peaceful measures to settle the conflict. But peaceful means were not exhausted before Obama began bombing Libya. A high level international team – consisting of representatives from the Arab League, the Organization of African Unity, and the UN Secretary General – should have been dispatched to Tripoli to attempt to negotiate a real cease-fire, and set up a mechanism for elections and for protecting civilians.

There is no doubt that Muammar Qaddafi has been brutally repressing Libyans in order to maintain his power. But the purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. The burgeoning conflict in Libya is a civil war, which arguably does not constitute a threat to international peace and security.

The UN Charter commands that all Members settle their international disputes by peaceful means, to maintain international peace, security, and justice. Members must also refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Only when a State acts in self-defense, in response to an armed attack by one country against another, can it militarily attack another State under the UN Charter. The need for self-defense must be overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation. Libya has not attacked another country. The United States, France and Britain are not acting in self-defense. Humanitarian concerns do not constitute self-defense.

The UN Charter does not permit the use of military force for humanitarian interventions. But the UN General Assembly embraced a norm of “Responsibility to Protect” in the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit. Paragraph 138 of that document says each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Paragraph 139 adds that the international community, through the United Nations, also has “the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

Chapter VI of the Charter requires parties to a dispute likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to “first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” Chapter VIII governs “regional arrangements,” such as NATO, the Arab League, and the Organization of African Unity. The chapter specifies that regional arrangements “shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements . . .”

It is only when peaceful means have been tried and proved inadequate that the Security Council can authorize action under Chapter VII of the Charter. That action includes boycotts, embargoes, severance of diplomatic relations, and even blockades or operations by air, sea or land.

The “responsibility to protect” norm grew out of frustration with the failure to take action to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, where a few hundred troops could have saved myriad lives. But the norm was not implemented to stop Israel from bombing Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, which resulted in a loss of 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians. Nor is it being used to stop the killing of civilians by the United States in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is also hypocrisy inherent in the U.S. bombing of Libya to enforce international law. The Obama administration has thumbed its nose at its international obligations by refusing to investigate officials of the Bush administration for war crimes for its torture regime. Both the Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions compel Member States to bring people to justice who violate their commands.

The United States is ostensibly bombing Libya for humanitarian reasons. But Obama refuses to condemn the repression and government killings of protestors in Bahrain using U.S.-made tanks and weaponry because that is where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed. And Yemen, a close U.S. ally, kills and wounds protestors while Obama watches silently.

Regime change is not authorized by the resolution. Yet U.S. bombers targeted the Qaddafi compound and Obama said at a news conference in Santiago that it is “U.S. policy that Qaddafi needs to go.” The resolution specifically forbids a “foreign occupation force.” But it is unlikely that the United States, France and Britain will bomb Libya and leave. Don’t be surprised to hear there are Western forces on the ground in Libya to “train” or “assist” the rebels there.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates pegged it when he said that a “no-fly zone” over Libya would be an “act of war.” Although the Arab League reportedly favored a no-fly zone, Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, said that “what is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone.” He added, “What we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.” He plans to call a new meeting of the league to reconsider its support for a no-fly zone.

The military action in Libya sets a dangerous precedent of attacking countries where the leadership does not favor the pro-U.S. or pro-European Union countries. What will prevent the United States from stage-managing some protests, magnifying them in the corporate media as mass actions, and then bombing or attacking Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or North Korea? During the Bush administration, Washington leveled baseless allegations to justify an illegal invasion of Iraq.

Moreover, Obama took military action without consulting Congress, the only body with the Constitutional power to declare war. It is not clear what our mission is there or when it will end. Congress – and indeed, the American people – should debate what we are doing in Libya. We must not support a third expensive and illegal war. There is a crying need for that money right here at home. And we should refuse to be complicit in the killing of more civilians in a conflict in which we don’t belong.


Marjorie Cohn is a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, past president of the National Lawyers Guild, and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her latest book is “The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse” (NYU Press).
Comment On This Commentary See All Comments (1)


Mockery of "all necessary measures"
By Tripathi, Deepak at Mar 22, 2011 12:50 PM

Thank you, Professor Cohn, for your excellent analysis. Instead of pursuing "all necessary measures" as stated in the UN Security Council resolution, the United States and allies have immediately jumped on to the most extreme measure. Hardly surprising, given the record of American foreign policy, but nonetheless dangerous, tragic and legally questionable.

Deepak Tripathi
(currently in India)

[H_O]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

Johnny cakes--the NOI is nothing but a mere Detroit style islam for "African Americans"
bunch a crap.

matter of fact,,the Islamic world thinks of him as a blasphemous infidel and its only here where the African American is brainwashed into his stupid rhetoric.

[jah_yout]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Johnny cakes--the NOI is nothing but a mere Detroit style islam for &quot;African Americans&quot;
bunch a crap.

matter of fact,,the Islamic world thinks of him as a blasphemous infidel and its only here where the African American is brainwashed into his stupid rhetoric. </div></div>

classic case of shooting the messenger;
i'm pretty sure you did not actually watch the video clip...despite whatever personal biases you have against him, he gave you more truth in a 10 minute clip than governments give you in 10 years

[johnnycakes]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

H_O ,


Farrakhan does frequently make some good points but I do wish he'd make them without the circus atmosphere that surrounds him in these videos.

He's talking politics in the manner of a prayer service much like a black Christian minister would do and which to me is very distracting.

This sort of serious discussion is out of place in a house of worship which is devoted to fantastic beings.

[RichD]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Defense Secretary Robert Gates pegged it when he said that a “no-fly zone” over Libya would be an “act of war.” Although the Arab League reportedly favored a no-fly zone, Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, said that “what is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone.” He added, “What we want is the protection of civilians and not the shelling of more civilians.” <span style="font-weight: bold">He plans to call a new meeting of the league to reconsider its support for a no-fly zone.</span>



</div></div>

he has
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Arab League is soon expected to reiterate support for a no-fly zone over Libya, ending two days of ambivalence that shook the confidence of the US and European states. ...... </div></div>

[jah_yout]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H_O ,


Farrakhan does frequently make some good points but I do wish he'd make them without the circus atmosphere that surrounds him in these videos.

He's talking politics in the manner of a prayer service much like a black Christian minister would do and which to me is very distracting.

This sort of serious discussion is out of place in a house of worship which is devoted to fantastic beings. </div></div>


i'm confused...
to me it looks like he was in a radio studio, not a church or mosque;
he was absolutely on point with his message

[H_O]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

Ill say it like i say to christians,jews whomever-politics and religion,,then mixing the two makes for a volatile cocktail.

but this guy and his false american style islam NOI nonsense.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">H_O ,


Farrakhan does frequently make some good points but I do wish he'd make them without the circus atmosphere that surrounds him in these videos.

He's talking politics in the manner of a prayer service much like a black Christian minister would do and which to me is very distracting.

This sort of serious discussion is out of place in a house of worship which is devoted to fantastic beings. </div></div>


i'm confused...
to me it looks like he was in a radio studio, not a church or mosque;
he was absolutely on point with his message </div></div>


jah_yout,

I watched the second posted video because the first was voided for some reason.
Watch it and you'll see what I am talking about.

A mosque of a phony-baloney branch of a phony-balony religion is not the place to expect people to listen seriously on factual matters.

( I just finished reading Christopher Hitchens' &quot;God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything&quot; in which he details the origins of Islam and it THAT faith is based on things even less believable than Christianity and Judaism)

[RichD]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

( I just finished reading Christopher Hitchens' &quot;God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything&quot; in which he details the origins of Islam and it THAT faith is based on things even less believable than Christianity and Judaism) </div></div>

which ones were the most unbelievable?

[Seveen]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

what exactly does that mean - was it spliced together or some one put words into his mouth

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kia</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This video has been removed as a violation of Youtube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content </div></div>

[RichD]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Seveen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what exactly does that mean - was it spliced together or some one put words into his mouth

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kia</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
This video has been removed as a violation of Youtube's policy against spam, scams, and commercially deceptive content </div></div> </div></div> maybe it was not the owner who post it

[johnnycakes]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

RichD,
Much of Islam is taken directly from the Judaic Old Testament and then added to so it has that going against it..

Allah passed on the religion to an illiterate Mohammed to pass on to the world much as God seems to have done and never appears to the whole world at one time to get the message across.

Then Mohammed died and the religion split based on whom you believe is the rightful heir and we have the Shias and the Sunnis killing each other over that.

The Islamic services MUST be done in Arabic as the various translations of the Koran somehow aren't good enough which hails back to the Roan Catholic services held in Latin for so long to retain the mystic quality of the prayers which sound ridiculous in plain English.

Much more.

You needn't read the book but it is well worth the read.
There are a great many videos of Hitchens at You Tube with him debating various clergy on the existence of God and the stupidity and cruelty of the various religions, all of which are very entertaining except to believers since I've not seen Hitchens come out second best in any of the videos I've watched.
He is so very knowledgeable and usually debates brilliantly and eloquently (marvelous vocabulary) without notes while his opponents drone on reading from their prepared texts.

[Derek]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H_O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Johnny cakes--the NOI is nothing but a mere Detroit style islam for &quot;African Americans&quot;
bunch a crap.

matter of fact,,the Islamic world thinks of him as a blasphemous infidel and its only here where the African American is brainwashed into his stupid rhetoric. </div></div>

I haven't come across any stupid rhetoric from Farrakhan.

[Panajar]

Re: Farrakhan warns and advises Obama on Libya

Interesting .