IS President Obama Preparing America For One World Order?

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
FMF,
Do you deny that "Allah" is not in Muslim or Islamic mythology?

"Allah" is the Arabic word for the Abrahamic God. It is also the word for God in Indonesian, Malaysian and Melayu ~ and maybe some others. Christian Arabs were using the word "Allah" for 600 years before Islam got up and running. Where I live, Catholics and Protestants use the word "Allah" to refer to God. Your "Allah as a moon god" things is a fairly well known hoax. The fact that you posted and did not respond to being told it is a hoax suggests to me that you were spreading it deliberately to score some sort of unfathomable partisan 'religion points'. 😕

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
FMF,
Are you denying that "Allah" is not in Islamic mythology?

"Allah" is part of all mythologies surrounding the Abrahamic God. It's a vocabulary item that refers to the Abrahamic God.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
FMF,
Please put the "Allah" information in the direct Forum Title. I don't know off hand which one that is.

Put some information in the direct Forum Title? What are you on about? Anyway, I see no need to assist you in airing the Christian hoax about the "moon god" any more than you already have done yourself. Like I told you before, the 'Allah as a moon god' thing is a book-selling hoax & hype meme dating back to 1994 that has been perpetrated by (and perpetrated on) Evangelical Christians.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Finnegan,
If Bush was speaking on world order which included "freedom" for all, then why is America losing freedoms? Why do Americans have to lose freedom in order to comply with a world order?

Language is a slippery thing when certain words or phrases acquire a very particular meaning for one group which is not shared by others.

As I understand this from my brief investigation, Bush was not referring to One World Order in the terms that you imagine or at least claim. It requires the mind of a conspiracy theorist to put this interpretation on his words.

What he said is perfectly plain to others. He was excited and pleased by the prospect of an end to the cold war and anticipated that the world would emerge from that political ice age to enjoy a renaissance characterised by enhanced respect for human rights among other things. Of course, the world has sobered up since that heady time, perhaps most of all due to the experience of the disintegration of Yugoslavia into a disgraceful period of nationalist and sectarian violence. I do not think that respect for human rights stood out in that terrible period as a defining feature of the new world order.

The nearest thing to a serious claim for a new world order following the death of the soviet empire was surely "The End of History" by Fukayama, who thought the world has now settled on liberal democracy as its final end point for all ideological debate.

I agree that the USA has had a terrible record regarding human rights and it has been subject to critical reports from the United Nations for year after year without apparently blushing. Of course, the US has no time for the UN and its inconvenient reports, somewhat contradicting your suggestion otherwise.

I do not agree that America has been complying with any world order unless it suited its perceived self interest. Regrettably, since I disapprove of Putin very much indeed, his recent speech in the Kremlin setting out his view of American "exceptionalism" sums up the view of many other observers. The only "world order" acceptable to the US will have a US general in charge.