Friday, October 09, 2009

Fjordman Asks: Why Obama but not Osama?

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here
.


I must admit that the news that US President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was surprising, but only mildly so given what I know about the people who are members of the Nobel Committee in Oslo.

By Norwegian standards, Hillary Clinton is a conservative politician. That was not a joke, it was a factual statement. The New York Times would be one the most right-wing newspapers in Norway. This is the only way I can explain local politics to outsiders. However, even many Norwegians apparently find it puzzling that Barack Hussein Obama got the Peace Prize.

I have spent much of the day trying to figure out why he got it, and I finally came up with this answer:
- - - - - - - - -
Because he has done so much to advance the cause of Islam.

Two years ago I suggested that Ayaan Hirsi Ali or other ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina or Wafa Sultan should be awarded the Peace Prize. My thinking was that they should get it because Islamic Jihad now constitutes the greatest threat to world peace, and former Muslims who defy the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam are standing up to this.

I am, of course, perfectly aware of the fact that they will probably never receive it, but even if somebody nominated them that would constitute a small victory. The Nobel Committee has now taken the exact opposite approach and concluded that to promote Islam is to promote peace. We all know that Islam is peace, and since Obama is advancing the cause of Islam worldwide he’s spreading peace.

During his Cairo speech as US President in June 2009, Obama announced that “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” In effect, he pledged himself to spreading Islam and censorship of those who criticize Islam around the world. Whatever else he might be, Obama is a man of his word. The Obama Administration has now co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations along with Islamic countries.

If the Norwegian Nobel Committee has indeed decided that to promote Islam is to promote peace, I think they have unfairly bypassed another name: Osama bin Laden. Obama has been very eager during his first months as US President to promote Islam, but in all fairness, bin Laden has devoted his entire life to the same cause. Due to his many years of devotion to the spread of Islamic peace and justice, you could consequently argue that Osama deserves the Peace Prize more than Obama.

I suspect that the only reason why Osama bin Laden hasn’t received the Nobel Peace Prize yet is because as far as I know he hasn’t been nominated. I hope somebody can correct this mistake as soon as possible so that he can receive his well-deserved Prize in 2010.

36 comments:

Homophobic Horse said...

This is a sigh of serious mental instability and cognitive impairment in the Western ruling elite. Even the Soviets were malevolent but rational at least.

S said...

According to wiki - ""Nominations must usually be submitted to the Committee by February 1 of the year in question. Nominations by committee members can be submitted up to the date of the first Committee meeting after this deadline.""

So he was nominated 2 weeks after being sworn in? Or nominated by someone on the actual committee shortly after that.

Not much time to earn the award.

Gray Falcon said...

In all fairness, one has to be alive to get the Nobel Prize, and OBL has been dead since 2001...

Homophobic Horse said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kritisk_borger said...

Maybe the Chairman of the Noble Committee, Torbjorn Jagland, simply wanted to make amends for his previous dubious behaviour towards people of colour, by giving the peace price to Obama?

In 2001, during a visit by the president of Gabon to Norway, Jagland referred to the president, as "Bongo from Congo"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bongo_from_congo

Or maybe it's because of Jagland’s fraudulent and downright criminal behaviour in The AUF membership scandal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Youth_League_membership_scandal

I read an article in a Norwegian newspaper shortly after the peace prize was awarded to Obama, in which the Norwegian Prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg stated that this award could be used to persuade/influence Obama to continue with his positive and liberal policies.

Stoltenberg was also excited about the possibility that Obama might visit Norway in December to receive the prize, and that he, Stoltenberg then could get to know the president better and possibly show Obama more of the country.

Leftists Norwegian politicians are at the moment acting like over excited children, because they’ll get to meet Obama, and who knows even get an opportunity to give him some advice?

Fjordman said...

Falcon: Maybe Osama is indeed dead, but nobody seems to know for sure.

Dymphna said...

Leftists Norwegian politicians are at the moment acting like over excited children, because they’ll get to meet Obama, and who knows even get an opportunity to give him some advice?

Or maybe...jsut touch the hem of his garment and be healed?

BTW, word has it that Obama is going to prove his worthiness for this prize by wallking across the Atlantic to get it.

Meanwhile, Michelle was heard to say (her voice breaking), "for the first time in my life I'm proud to be human"...

Opus #6 said...

Makes sense to me.

Arafat.

Carter.

Obama.

Osama.

S said...

Is a U.S. president allowed to take a bribe/gift like this anyway from a foreign group? Seems like open bribery.

I'm not sure of the history of these awards. Were any given to still serving presidents?

It sure seems like influence money.

Robin Shadowes said...

Obama groveled in front of King Abdullah. Thus the saudi regent must be a much powerful man than Obama, more influential, even spreading islam more than Obama and more well deserved of the Nobel Peace Price. I would actually love the idea of him getting the prize next time if for nothing less than to see the western elite grovel in the dirt and kissing his feet.

Call Me Mom said...

@kritisk_borger,
You said "...this award could be used to persuade/influence Obama to continue with his positive and liberal policies.
"

Would you have any idea of which policies those would be? The positive ones, I mean, as there are nothing but liberal ones to be found.

I grow more uneasy by the day as I read about the behavior and decisions of this Congress and Mr. Obama's administration.
He claims to be a Christian but speaks in a way that conveys one message to Islam ignorant Americans and a completely different message to Muslims. He claims to be a Christian but snubs the National Day of Prayer gathering while he sends out a Ramandan message to the world. He claims that not only is America no longer a Christian nation, but that it is a Muslim nation in a display of disingenuousness regarding the actual numbers to support such a claim that a teenager wanting to attend a party with no adult supervision would envy.
How are so many still bamboozled by this man?

Papa Whiskey said...

It will be recalled that when the Nobel committee awarded Jimmy Carter the Peace Prize in 2002, its chairman Gunnar Berge declared that it "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. ... It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States."

The bestowing of the Nobel Peace Prize has become a nakedly political gesture by a gaggle of Scandihoovian academics about whose opinion no one with an ounce of sense should care a whit.

Letteratti said...

He got a Nobel not even halfway into his presidency, I think. What if he does wage a war? Quite possible isn't it? How does that affect his status as a Nobel peace prize holder and how does being a Nobel prize holder affect his judgement and will to act in a war if it does take place.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I think the oil money has corrupted reason and common sense in Norway long ago. Seriously. When you have that kind of riches, you can get away with just about anything (just watch the Saudis), and voters tend to not be very critical, because society is wealthy and few problems are perceived in daily life.

My best hope about this silly decision is that it - as so many others - causes people to speak up against obvious stupidity, lack of principle, and with a throughout analysis of the possible consequences.

That makes our Elite of Mutual Praisers look stupid, overpriced and not worth our confidence.

BTW, I think Osama is indeed dead. His video production department, who still tries to scare people with things he's supposedly saying, hasn't been able to come up with fresh video, or even a photoshopped image with a recent newspaper, for years. He probably died some embarrassing, lonely death somewhere in a cave. Now they're trying to hide the fact that - just like ol' Mo - he died in a way that doesn't make him deserve the 72 virgins. Going public about this could damage recruitment...

IoshkaFutz said...

IMO opinion, he got the peace prize for the same reason he was elected by the people of the United States. The powers that be practice RealPolitik in their own spheres and leave KindergartenPolitik to the people.

Anonymous said...

Reading the citation

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

it is clear that the award is being handed for "Hope". Hope that Obama will follow the multiculti line, obey UN resolutions etc. In fact Obama was doing that anyway, but this award will put pressure on him not to.

And again here, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman".

It is all about hope. This sort of things are counterproductive. For one, it forces the recipient to break away. Second, it creates a dangerous atmosphere by indicating to dictators and assorted evil doers, that they can get away with it, which eventually leads to war. WWII is the classic example, where the natural tolerance of a genuinely good man, Chamberlain, eventually led to the most horrific of wars when Chamberlain lost his patience.

Anonymous said...

Papa Whiskey

You have something there. The prize to Carter was really the first anti-Bush prize for Bush's failure to act like Carter after 9/11.

The prize to Al Gore was the second anti-Bush prize, for Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto protocol.

And finally, the prize to Obama is the third anti-Bush prize, as Obama is going to withdraw from Afghanistan, and will close Gitmo, and will no longer take robust foreign policy measures.

Frankly, it is President Bush is that is being awarded in a round about way, as it is he that has been instrumental in having three Americans get the peace prize.

Anonymous said...

The Nobel peace prize committee has been obsessed by hatred of George Bush. This is the third prize that they have given to very prominent Americans, whose main persona is that they are anti-Bush. The committee hopes that this third Nobel prize to a "NOT BUSH", will wash Bush out of their collective minds.

The Nobel peace prize committee needs help - psychiatric help.

Anonymous said...

Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush. See Wiki.

I hope that President Bush is enjoying all this, as he is responsible for driving a whole bunch of otherwise normal Norwegians, over the brink.

Henrik R Clausen said...

It is clear that the award is being handed for "Hope".

Yes. The problem here is that 0bama has not created hope, he has awakened it. The hope belongs to each citizen, individually, and should not be projected onto a single Great Leader. That has, historically, let to great disasters.

0bama is carried on the hope of millions, and I see no possible way he can fulfill those hopes - not least because these are very difficult times that would take a very different kind of person to do that.

I hope ( :) ) that people will realize that they need to be responsible for their own lives, will stop depending on government for fixing everything, and understand enough of how things work to next time elect someone who will crush the enemies of the US and thus guarantee peace for generations to come.

Sean O'Brian said...

The Nobel Prize for Literature awarded by Sweden in 2005 to Harold Pinter, who hasn't written a good play since the 1970's, was also an anti-Bush prize. Pinter opposed the Iraq war and claimed (falsely AFAIK) that uranium depletion had led to the deaths of numerous Iraqi children.

kritisk_borger said...

Call Me Mom,

I didn't refer to it as positive policies, Stoltenberg did.

Henrik R Clausen,

"I think the oil money has corrupted reason and common sense in Norway long ago. Seriously. When you have that kind of riches, you can get away with just about anything (just watch the Saudis), and voters tend to not be very critical, because society is wealthy and few problems are perceived in daily life."

Answer

It's a common myth that people in Norway live cushy carefree lives, because of all the oil money that is supposedly floating around.

But the fact is that many Norwegians are struggling to make ends meet, because of extremely high prices and because they're being taxed to death. Life is certainly not easy for those people.

When I was living in Norway, I had to support my foreign born wife, without any form of handouts from the government, and I was seriously struggling to make ends meet. The last year I was living in Norway, I was earning close to NoK 450 000, which was a reasonable high salary at the time. But I was also working s..tloads of overtime (Saturdays/Sundays).

And I don't think that the average Norwegian is less critical than anyone else. A survey published in a newspaper in Norway recently showed that 1 in 5 Norwegians don't believe that there exists such a thing as man made global warming, despite the massive propaganda campaign that are trying to convince them otherwise. The same number for Denmark/Sweden is 1 in 10.

In the last general election in Norway, 23 percent of the voters gave their vote to the Progress Party. What are the equivalent numbers for anti-immigration parties in Sweden?

They reason why the socialist parties in Norway gets a lot of votes, is quite easy to explain. People living on the doll and that are receiving Government assistance aren't necessarily stupid. They know who butters their bread. If they were to vote for the Progress Party, they would actually have to get jobs. Same thing with the third world immigrants. They know who looks after their best interests (approves family reunifications etc..)

The average Norwegian (at least the ones that I worked with/friends of mine) were reasonably clued up people, and they were more than capable of looking through all the government propaganda that the media in the country are full of.

If we are to use the logic that all Norwegians are ignorant and stupid for having elected a socialist government, then we would be able to draw the same conclusion for America, for voting for Obama to govern the country for the next four years.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Point taken, Kritisk Borger.

I should perhaps have phrased it differently: The decisive vote lives relatively carefree lives, as long as they vote for stupid socialists governments who exploits the working class for the undeserved benefit of the non-working.

I think that would be more to the point. But still, I think it's stupid that the working class isn't revolting over this, demanding market-orientated reforms of the System.

Fremskridtspartiet is good news for Norway. In contrast with Denmark, however, actual influence seems limited.

En mulighed er, at Norge kommer tilbage til Danmark :)

If we are to use the logic that all Norwegians are ignorant and stupid for having elected a socialist government, then we would be able to draw the same conclusion for America, for voting for Obama to govern the country for the next four years.

Yes.

kritisk_borger said...

Henrik R Clausen

"En mulighed er, at Norge kommer tilbage til Danmark :)"

If Norway has to chose between the EU or joining a Norwegian/Danish union, I'd go for the latter anytime.

'Like barn leker best'

:-)

thll said...

Check out Bronwen Maddox in the 10th Oct 09 edition of the (London) Times "...a pointless prize awarded to a fool lost in his own mystique" and in the same edition cartoonist Peter Brookes' 'nature notes' depiction of Obama as a 'Nobel Peace prize Turkey' is well worth checking out.

Henrik R Clausen said...

If Norway has to chose between the EU or joining a Norwegian/Danish union, I'd go for the latter anytime.

Let's work for that :)

Dymphna said...

To answer an earlier question: I checked and two other sitting presidents received the prize: Theo Roosevelt and Wilson. However, both awards came near the end of their terms, and were for specific achievements, not for hopenchange.

The Nobel Committee has simply awarded another American politician a NOT-Bush award. You have to be a Democrat socialist to get it, though. Conservatives need not apply.

There is an artcle in the Constitution that prohibits presidents from accepting such awards, but it's ignored and one is considered churlish for pointing it out.

We have elected someone who is promising us the moon (when he's not bombing it, anyway). As many people have remarked over time, democracy is followed by tyranny because it is human nature to vote into office whomever is promising the most goodies for the least effort.

The question remains, has America reached that decline? The answer on Norway is in: yes, it has. No wonder it rewards an American who is hell-bent on reaching the same edge of the cliff.

They are practicing behavior modification on Obama and it's working.

thll said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
thll said...

Fjordman: "I have spent much of the day trying to figure out why he (Obama) got it (Nobel Peace Prize), and I finally came up with this answer: Because he has done so much to advance the cause of Islam."

But advancing the cause of Islam is merely a means to an end. Islam is the new socialism and its millions of adherents are the new sans coulottes. And it looks to me like Obama and the Peace Prize Committee, the EU, and all the other western leaders are trying to entice Islam to their cause - which is world-wide revolution.

Which in a way is a good thing. It says they can't muster the support they need without reaching out to the alien. And of course this in its turn will encourage more to see the world as it really is.

No pain, no gain.

Félicie said...

My parents tell me that life in the Soviet Union under Khruschev was a lot of fun. Every day people actually opened newspapers to see what the "baldy" has done and said this time. Khruschev and his escapades were the running joke of the day. I must mention that at all other times newspapers were never read or even opened but used directly as toilet paper, to which they were very well suited due to the high quality of print that didn't smudge.

I really feel that we are fast approaching "Khruschev times" in teh West or are already there. This man is a Joker. Every day I open my computer with some trepidation to see what else he has done. And every time he manages to shock and surprise me and make me laugh bitter and sardonic laughter.

Thinking back to this analogy, I can say that there is one consolation. We can anticipate a flowering of underground art - jokes, satirical and allegorical plays, underground bards composing songs that sweep around the country with lightning speed and soon are on everyone's lips. Life will become full and interesting again. At least, I hope so.

Robin Shadowes said...

Now if the committees are so PC as to give the peace and litterature prizes to people who are anti-west, why not do the same with the different science prizes? I mean the whole MENA region is swamped with rocket scientists, brain surgeons, engineers and such. Who would be more well-deserving of the prize in medicin than the mahoundian doctor who discovered that camel-urine was basiclly a universal cure to many ailments, including cancer. Now, such a wonderful discovery deserves to be awarded, doesn't it?

Profitsbeard said...

Quoting Mohammadism's own dismal dogmas and reporting the verbatim vicious [and worshipped by Muslims] words of the pedophile warlord Mohammad, is, in Obamaspeak, spreading "negative stereotypes about Islam".

We have entered Cloud-cuckooland.

We float on Laputa.

It's Bizarro world.

Obama is its gnik.

Sebastian said...

He won it because he twists moral clarity whihc is the desired convention these days. People are tired of the old morality which they ignorantly think favors Western Civilisation for reasons other than the one rational people still recongnise as the truth, namely because Western Civ has had superior historical moral tradition.
An example of this would be his equivalency of Israel and those who hate her.
The other main reason that I see is his bashing of America, or his knocking her down to size in their eyes. When she truly is great and wonderful to men and women of reason, light and goodness.

Call Me Mom said...

kritisk_borger,
I was aware that you were quoting someone else. I was wondering if Stoltenberg had bothered to name any of these "positive" policies.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.

WAKE UP said...

We should immediately start a campaign to nominate Osama Bin Laden for the Nobel Peace prize.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Nominate Osama bin Laden?

I don't think it'd work - am not a believer in reverse psychology.