It is not clear that President Obama
even recognises
there is a War on Islamism,
rather than a series of mopping up operations he has inherited from
his much-criticised predecessor.
But in this globalised age,
Islamism is at war with us,
and always will be, until it is destroyed like communism was.
Obama's pathetic reaction to 9/11, printed 19 Sept 2001:
"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers
...
It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.
...
we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe - children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."
Of course, this is all nonsense.
The 9/11 attackers were driven by oil wealth, Islamism and hope,
not by poverty and despair.
And they are not "children" or animals who cannot help what they do.
They are adults - moral agents responsible for their own evil actions.
In 2001, Bush understood 9/11 far better than Obama did.
Some funny comments on Obama's theories
here,
including:
"I guess we should just kill the poor."
Dick Cheney, Feb 2009, already worries that Obama will make a terror WMD attack more likely.
"Protecting the country's security is "a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business.
These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek."
Sarah Palin, Tea Party Convention, 6 Feb 2010, on President Obama's 1990s attitude to Islamic terrorism:
"Americans deserve to know the truth about the threats that we face and what the administration is or isn't doing about them. So let's talk about them. New terms used like "overseas contingency operation" instead of the word "war." That reflects a world view that is out of touch with the enemy that we face.
...
on Christmas day, the system did not work.
Abdulmutallab
passed through airport security with a bomb. And he boarded a flight ... On Christmas day, the only thing that stopped this terrorist is blind luck and brave passengers.
...
What followed was equally disturbing after he was captured. He was questioned for only 50 minutes
.. and then read his Miranda rights. The administration says then there are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendants. But a lot of us would beg to differ. .. there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer before he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent.
...
The events surrounding the Christmas day plot
reflect the kind of thinking that led to September 11th. The threat then, as the "USS Cole" was attacked, our embassies were attacked, it was treated like an international crime spree not like an act of war.
...
Treating this as a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risks because that is not how radical Islamic extremists look at this. They know we are at war. To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern."
In 2008-09, as Bush's Presidency ended and Obama's began,
the jihad in Afghanistan seemed to get
new spirit and momentum.
Victor Davis Hanson, September 4, 2009, wonders if Obama caused this:
"Consider casualties: Years after the removal of the Taliban, Afghanistan was still relatively quiet, and a year's fatalities there often were exceeded by a single month's deaths in Iraq (e.g. cf. 48 American dead in Afghanistan in 2003, 52 in 2004, 99 in 2005; 98 in 2006; etc. Yet more have been killed already in the first part of 2009 (183) than in all of last year combined (155). So why is Afghanistan heating up precisely as Iraq cooled off? ...
No one really knows, but there may well be reasons other than either we are escalating, stirring up hornets, and offering more targets, or suffering the wages of George Bush's supposed past neglect (when 48 or 52 Americans were killed in an entire year).
All the talk of leaving Afghanistan, the constant trashing of the war on terror, the serial presidential proclamations to the Muslim world that America has been in the past culpable for a variety of sins and has underappreciated Muslim genius, the vows to investigate and even try members of the CIA, the overseas apology tour, etc. may well have emboldened a once dejected and battered Taliban and al Qaeda into thinking that the U.S., not themselves, is tired".
Afghan Mythologies, by Victor Davis Hanson, November 9, 2009 - The Afghan War is winnable, if Obama only wanted to.
"We have experienced soldiers and military leadership, a just cause and Western unity. In other words,
we have everything we need to defeat the Taliban - except a commander-in-chief as confident about fighting and winning as he once was as a candidate."
Terror Attacks Against U.S. At All-Time High, May 26, 2010. Oddly, Obama's gentler, weaker approach to Islamism
has been met by
more jihad attacks, not less.
"The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period".
As Sarah Palin would say:
"How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for ya?"
Yet Obama absurdly claims that the Emir is in favour of "democracy".
"I expressed to him my appreciation of the leadership that the Emir has shown when it comes to democracy in the Middle East
...
He is motivated by a belief that the Libyan people should have the rights and freedoms of all people.
...
And so we've had discussions about how we can continue to promote democracy, human rights, increased freedom and reform throughout the Middle East."
Later that night, in private talks, Obama continued the bullshit, but then admitted something was wrong:
"Pretty influential guy. He is a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform.
...
Now he himself is not reforming significantly. There's no big move toward democracy in Qatar."
Coalition military casualties by month in Afghanistan.
The jihad escalates after Obama is elected in Nov 2008.
From here.
America has loyal allies around the world.
Britain, Eastern Europe, and Israel - America's only real ally in the Middle East.
And Obama has shown little interest in them all.
Obama wants America to have no allies.
He said of both of them:
"they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."
Melanie Phillips replies:
"Really? And what might they be? Their grievances are:
a) the existence of Israel,
b) its support by America,
c) the absence of salafist Islam in the world.
Does Obama think these 'grievances' are legitimate?"
Poll, July 2009:
Only 6 percent of Israeli Jews see President Obama as pro-Israel.
Obama gets angry with Israel about some trivia, Mar 2010.
Obama has crossed the line by Isi Leibler, 16 Mar 2010.
A round-up of Obama's first year, from Israel's point of view.
"the US-Israel relationship has been on a downward spiral since Obama".
He calls for all Israelis to stand firm against Obama,
and for
"the Obama administration to relate to us with at least the same level of courtesy and respect it extends to rogue states."
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner', March 25, 2010.
Obama insults America's only ally in the Middle East
for no reason.
Obama insults America's greatest source of shared intelligence about the global jihad.
Obama is "livid" with Israel over some trivia.
But not noticeably "livid" with Iran and Syria for killing American soldiers.
What an embarrassment President Obama is.
But I know Obama does not represent all Americans.
Barack Obama treats Israel and Britain with sneering contempt, Nile Gardiner, March 18th, 2010:
"In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America's two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. ... There is nothing clever about this approach - it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America's enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama's naïve approach since he took office."
Liz Cheney, 8 Apr 2010: "In the era of Obama, American allies have their loyalty met with humiliation, arrogance and incompetence. The shabby reception Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu received in Washington a few weeks ago - being treated as an uninvited guest at the White House -- was disgraceful. ...
Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East and one of our strongest and most important allies in the world. Barack Obama is playing a reckless game that could have deadly consequences if he continues on the path of diminishing America's ties to Israel."
Some people are talking about
"The Obama Intifada".
Is a new wave of Palestinian violence about to be encouraged by Obama's naive policies?
He says the Palestinians must renounce terror.
But Hamas hasn't and yet it still gets rewarded, with Obama calling for a Palestinian state.
He thinks a Palestinian state will bring peace.
He is vague as to whether he
wants the ethnic cleansing of the 550,000 Jews
in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
He says
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps".
In theory, this could include 90 percent of Israeli settlers.
But the wording is vague, disturbing and threatening.
He says:
"The Palestinian people must have ... a sovereign and contiguous state."
This is vague and disturbing.
How is their state to be contiguous?
Comment:
"What offends my sense of logic .. is that in the corridors of power, it is fashionable to pretend that one side is not
mostly animated by deeply-rooted religious hatred.
We hear it's the land. It's a few apartment blocks, AKA settlements. It's the exact nature of the borders. It's Palestinians wanting self-government (and look what a swell job they are doing of that in the Gaza strip).
The simple truth is that the I-P conflict is fueled by the religious hatred and a genocidal dream on the Islamic side.
...
Sure, there may be tangential issues regarding land, borders and self-government. But to conflate these with the real cause of the conflict -
one-way religious hatred - is the height of irrationality, and I dare say the main reason why in 60 years we haven't moved past square one."
How refreshing it would be if an American President would say he supports Israel full stop,
and until the Palestinians change, he is not interested in their problems.
The whole speech comes across as ignorant of the region
and indifferent to the security of Israel.
The Palestinians, trying to succeed where terror has failed, try to get the UN to recognise a unilateral declaration of
Palestine as a state using the 1967 borders, without any peace process at all with Israel.
That is, the UN is to support the
ethnic cleansing of the 550,000 Jews in the West Bank and East Jerusalem,
and the setting up of a terrorist state on Israel's borders.
Obama, very late in the day, says the US will veto this.
Good for him.
But maybe he encouraged this.
For a supposed "important" speech,
he does not really address the fundamental issue in the Islamic world
- the lack of democracy, human rights and religious freedom.
Sure, he praises democracy and so on,
but he never openly criticises the Islamic world
for its lack of democracy and freedom.
He never explains that it, not the West, needs to change.
He never criticises sharia.
He talks as if the tens of thousands killed by
Islamist jihad across the world
are the fault of the West
(he names "colonialism", the "Cold War", "modernity" and "globalization")
rather than a sick ideology within Islam with its own logic and momentum.
He praises Islam's medieval inventions
but fails to address the reasons for its decline in the last 500 years,
when it has invented nothing.
He praises Islam's (probably imaginary) medieval religious tolerance,
but fails to criticise its lack of religious freedom today.
He never criticises
Egypt for its persecution of Christians and gays,
or its lack of democracy.
He talks about "the daily humiliations" of Palestinians under Israeli occupation
without mentioning that its sole cause is Islamic violence.
If the Palestinians would stop using violence,
life under Israeli "occupation" would be very pleasant.
Criticism of the Cairo speech:
"Platitudes and naivete: Obama's Cairo speech".
Robert Spencer's fisking of Obama's useless speech, 4 June 2009.
As Spencer points out, Obama has no real plan for defeating the jihad
(or for peace in Israel).
His ideas are naive and will not work.
Obama actually
quoted from a violent section of the Koran
without even noticing it.
"Had Obama or his Mideast advisors and speechwriters simply bothered to read this verse in context - verse 9:111, a jihadi all-time favorite, looms just above, promising believers paradise in exchange for their killing and being killed".
Victor Davis Hanson, December 5, 2009, says the Middle East is not like the self-critical West. They will be largely unimpressed by Obama's apologies:
"In general, the Arab world is suspicious of those who trash their own. Its leaders interpret Obama's apologies for his own country as being as much a character defect as proof of any new accommodation."
"At three different points in the speech, Obama defended a woman's right to wear the hijab, apparently as against the restrictions in French public schools or Turkish government offices or perhaps in the U.S. military, which insists on uniform headgear. But he said not a word about the right not to wear head covering, although the number of women forced to wear religious garments must be tens of thousands of times greater than the number deprived of that opportunity."
Muravchik also notes Obama's refusal to criticise his hosts:
"One of the two institutions co-hosting his speech was
Al-Azhar University,
which Obama saluted in his opening paragraph as "a beacon of Islamic learning." This may be so, but Al-Azhar admits only Muslims. ... Egyptian Christians are excluded. Perhaps this could be understood if it were only a school of Islamic learning .. but today Al-Azhar offers degrees in medicine, engineering, and a panoply of subjects. Its tens of thousands of students are subsidized by state funds provided by Egyptian taxpayers, ten percent of whom are Copts".
The death sentence for leaving Islam
was laid down as a ruling for all Muslims by the
Head of the Fatawa Council of Al-Azhar in 1978.
Even for the children of Muslim apostates, they pronounced:
"as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed".
Oddly enough, Obama did not mention this type of thing when he spoke at Al-Azhar.
May 2010: Nearly a year after the Cairo speech, Coptic Christian leaders have so far been unsuccessful in efforts to get an audience with Obama.
As Robert Spencer says:
"Perhaps he fears that to meet with them would be "Islamophobic.""
Idiotic President Obama opened his June 2009 speech by praising
Al-Azhar University:
"I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning ..."
Here in Jan 2007, Al-Azhar cleric Farahat Said Al-Munji
says homosexuals must be killed and burned.
Obama Failing Persecuted Christians Worldwide, says Pakistani ex-Muslim Sabatina James, 3 May 2010.
She is author of
My Fight for Faith and Freedom.
On Obama's awful Cairo speech, she says:
"You [Obama] are saying these things about the prophet [Muhammad] but why don't you protect [Christians]? You're a Christian and have such influence.
...
A man of such an influence should definitely speak differently. He should have said that he feels for the people who are living in prison and who may somehow be listening to the speech.
Even if he said something like that it would be good. But he did not even mention it.
...
And that is what I hate about politics. They don't care about the real things that are going on with human rights."
Sabatina James lives under a death threat for converting from Islam to Christianity.
"Perhaps most importantly, the president of the United States should speak up because we live in a day and age where the reality of religious persecution under Islam is so well documented — unlike in the days of former U.S. presidents who may be excused — that to continue ignoring it is tantamount to abetting it. Just as history has recorded the great sufferings of non-Muslims under Islam, so too will it record the complacency or complicity of those who are in a great position to end the persecution, but refuse to do so."
-
Raymond Ibrahim, January 23, 2012, says Obama should speak up about religious persecution under Islam.
Mark Steyn, 20 Sept 2010, on Obama's annoying intervention in the
Koran burning dispute.
"Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn't burn any buildings or women and children. ... He hadn't actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the President of the United States to denounce him ... Why? .. why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama's famous "teaching moments"? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the President, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where's the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones' First Amendment rights?
... President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d' before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys bibles as a matter of state policy".
James Taranto, 17 Sept 2010, notes the failure of Obama (and the rest of the left) to express outrage at the fate of poor
Molly Norris,
who has been forced into hiding by Islamist death squads.
"Last month, speaking to a mostly Muslim audience .. the president strongly defended the right of [an] imam .. to build a mosque adjacent to Ground Zero. ... Obama said he was merely standing up for the First Amendment. As far as we recall, it's the only time Barack Obama has ever stood up for anybody's First Amendment rights.
Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?"
Irish Muslim Entrepreneurship Conference, Dublin, Ireland, Oct 2010.
As part of Obama's silly
"'Muslim entrepreneurship initiative' to build ties with Muslim communities around the world",
the US Embassy in Dublin sponsors a conference on "Muslim entrepreneurship".
"Ambassador Daniel M. Rooney .. as a gesture of goodwill, offered a gift of President Obama's autobiographies
to Sk. Hussain Halawa, Imam of the Irish Islamic Cultural Centre."
While I do feel sorry for Halawa having to receive such an obnoxious gift,
shouldn't the Ambassador be asking him some hard questions,
such as does he believe in the rights of apostates?
And is he a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Obama, Apr 2010, praises
"The 99"
Muslim superheroes comics.
He says the superheroes
"embody the teachings and tolerance of Islam."
Does Obama really think Islam is tolerant (if so, he is ignorant)
or does he think that calling it so will make it so (if so, he is naive).
But you can never be dhimmi enough for them:
Despite Obama's dhimmitude, a
crazed Islamic mob in Afghanistan in Apr 2011 is unimpressed.
These ones are angry because a pastor in America burnt a Koran.
Obama obviously needs to try harder if he wants to avoid offending these people.
Ramadan - Obama praises Islam. Islam slaughters and bombs.
Ramadan is well known as
a time of Islamic slaughter.
It is also becoming known as a time when Obama will praise Islam
for various imaginary virtues.
Obama's Ramadan boilerplate, 11 Aug 2010. Is it really the President's job to issue such nonsensical platitudes?
"These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."
Shouldn't Obama provide some evidence
of the extraordinary statement that Islam has played a role in
advancing justice, progress, tolerance and human dignity?
"Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality."
Known for violence and terror
surely?
It may be nice that Obama
engages in such pee-cee platitudes and ahistorical puffery.
But it certainly makes one distrust everything he says.
Robert Spencer, 13 Aug 2010:
"This year's Ramadan message from Barack Obama is the latest in a long line of warmly complimentary communications that he has addressed to the Islamic world over the last eighteen months. Reciprocally warm and friendly greetings have yet to arrive from those to whom Obama has addressed these messages, but the President appears undaunted. Eighteen months into his presidency, he seems to be clinging more determinedly than ever to the idea that soft words about Islam will turn away the jihad - despite the total lack of confirming evidence."
Obama remarks on Ramadan, 10 Aug 2011. He absurdly says that Islam is
"a faith known for its diversity and a commitment to justice and the dignity of all human beings."
The "Ramadan Bombathon" at
The Religion of Peace
tracks the orgy of Islamic violence during Ramadan.
The above are the scores for Ramadan 2011 (1 Aug – 30 Aug 2011).
Fort Hood massacre, Nov 2009
- The worst Islamist terror homeland attack in 7 years happens months into Obama's watch
Fort Hood massacre, Nov 2009. The jihad kills 13 in America. First big homeland attack in 7 years.
Apparently the worst mass murder spree at a US military base in history.
Obama wrecks Bush's record already:
Is it a coincidence that there were no major jihad attacks in the homeland USA
between the
Beltway sniper attacks of 2002
and the end of Bush's term in Jan 2009?
And that the first big jihad attack in 7 years came soon into Obama's term?
It may be a coincidence,
but the jihad sure isn't cooperating in making Obama's new approach look good.
There have been many smaller attacks, and foiled attacks, in the US since 9/11.
Victor Davis Hanson
(and here)
estimates over 20 small "lone wolf" attacks from Sept 2001 to Nov 2009, and over 20 foiled plots,
making an attack or foiled plot every 3 or 4 months since 9/11.
"the facts since 9/11 reveal an undeniable reality. Every few months either an Islamic-inspired terrorist plot will be foiled, or a young Muslim male will shoot, run down or stab someone while invoking anger at non-Muslims. In other words, the attack on Fort Hood happened on schedule. ... And something like it will occur again - soon."
The denial that this was jihad:
Hmm. Can't imagine what Major Malik Nadal Hasan's motivation could have been, James Delingpole, 6 Nov 2009:
"I was watching BBC's Newsnight when the story broke of a killing spree at a Texas military base and instantly wondered - as I'm sure did 99.99 per cent of its other viewers - whether this had anything to do with the Religion of Peace."
Jihad at Fort Hood, by Robert Spencer, Nov 6th, 2009.
"Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR, "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said." The Washington Post agreed: "The motive remains unclear ..""
As Spencer says:
"Hasan's motive was perfectly clear - but it was one that the forces of political correctness .. have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened
- and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.
...
The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that - once again - nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan."
Chris Matthews: We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood.
Allahpundit replies:
"Well … yes, that's true, if you think anything short of Hasan sitting up in his hospital bed and declaring "why, indeed, religion was a factor at Fort Hood" amounts to irresponsible speculation."
Daniel Pipes
(and here
and here)
has a disturbing roundup of all the historical attempts to blame jihad attacks on something other than jihad.
Excuses given for jihad attacks include:
1990: "A prescription drug for … depression" (assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane)
1991: "A robbery gone wrong" (assassination of
outspoken critic of the oppression of Copts in Egypt, Makin Morcos)
1994: "Road rage" (the killing of a Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge)
1997: "Many, many enemies in his mind" (shooting at the Empire State Building)
2000: A traffic incident (attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris)
2002: "A work dispute" (double murder at LAX)
2002: A "stormy [family] relationship" (Beltway snipers)
2003: An "attitude problem" (Hasan Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two)
2003: Mental illness (the mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam)
2004: "Loneliness and depression" (explosion in Italy outside a McDonald's restaurant)
2005: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member"
(a rampage at a retirement center in Virginia)
2006: "An animus toward women" (a murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle)
2006: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed"
(killing with an SUV in California)
As Pipes says:
"As a charter member of the jihad school of interpretation, I reject these explanations as weak, obfuscatory, and apologetic. The jihadi school, still in the minority, perceives Hasan's attack as one of many Muslim efforts to vanquish infidels and impose Islamic law. ...
We are not mystified by Hasan but see overwhelming evidence of his jihadi intentions.
...
If the jihad explanation is overwhelmingly more persuasive than the victim one, it's also far more awkward to articulate. Everyone finds blaming road rage, Accutane, or an arranged marriage easier than discussing Islamic doctrines. And so, a prediction: what Ralph Peters calls the army's "unforgivable political correctness" will officially ascribe Hasan's assault to his victimization and will leave jihad unmentioned.
And thus will the army blind itself and not prepare for its next jihadi attack."
The Root Cause Fallacy
by Ibn Warraq:
"From CNN to the New York Times, NPR to the Washington Post, the killings were presented as a result of racism. They were attributed to fear of deployment in Afghanistan and harassment from other soldiers. Cited were Major Hasan's supposed maladjustment to his life and his sense of not belonging, pre-traumatic stress disorder, and various personal and mental problems. All these explanations are variations on what I have called "the Root Cause Fallacy," which has been committed time and again since the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001. The Root Cause Fallacy was designed to deflect attention away from Islam, in effect to exonerate Islam, which, we are told, is never to blame for acts of violence. On this view we must not hold a great world religion of peace responsible when individuals of that faith resort to force. We must dig deeper: the real cause is poverty, U.S. foreign policy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Western colonialism and exploitation, marital problems of individuals, and so on. The present "psychological" interpretations in the case of Major Hasan are just the latest example of the Root Cause Fallacy at work."
The immediate attempt to change the subject to "fears" of an anti-Muslim "backlash":
Shooting Raises Fears for Sanity of Entire Western World, Mark Steyn, 6 Nov 2009,
on the immediate expression of "fears" of an anti-Muslim "backlash":
"it is, to put it at its mildest, the grossest bad taste to default every single time within minutes to the position that what's of most interest about an actual atrocity with real victims is that it may provoke an entirely hypothetical atrocity with entirely hypothetical victims."
The Phantom Backlash by Robert Spencer, 11 Nov 2009,
points out that the US government and military seem more concerned about "anti-Muslim" sentiment
than about the possibility of more jihad attacks.
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: "We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith." She said that DHS was taking steps to "prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush." Not "taking steps to prevent another jihad terror attack."
...
The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, George Casey [said]: "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." Not "I'm concerned that there could be another jihadist among our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that.""
The big question - Why did the US military employ an Islamist fanatic?
Our Brain Dead Country, David Horowitz, 6 Nov 2009.
"A Muslim fanatic with an Internet site praising Islamic suicide bombers as defenders of their comrades is a Major in the U.S. Army with access to military intelligence and lethal weaponry. ...
But despite his identification with America's enemies, the army kept him in its officer corps. How in God's name was this possible? But it was. ... Is everybody out of their mind?
The Ft. Hood killings are the chickens of the left coming home to roost."
Fort Hood's 9/11, Ralph Peters, 6 Nov 2009:
"The US Army's unforgivable political correctness is also to blame for the casualties at Ft. Hood.
Given the myriad warning signs, it's appalling that no action was taken against a man apparently known to praise suicide bombers and openly damn US policy. But no officer in his chain of command .. had the guts to take meaningful action against a dysfunctional soldier and an incompetent doctor.
... How could the Army allow an obviously incompetent and dysfunctional psychiatrist to treat our troubled soldiers returning from war? An Islamist whacko is counseled for arguing with veterans who've been assigned to his care? And he's not removed from duty? What planet does the Army live on?
For the first time since I joined the Army in 1976, I'm ashamed of its dereliction of duty."
Incredible:
Fort Hood killer
"once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats."
And he was let stay in the military!
Mark Steyn
on the Army's chief of staff
General Casey
saying it would be a tragedy if the army lost its diversity:
"An army that lets you check either the "home team" or "enemy" box according to taste is certainly diverse."
Tim Dunkin
describes the killer as
"a Muslim terrorist masquerading as a U.S. Army Major".
Great comment:
"Amazing that there are people who consider themselves far left, cutting this guy such slack, talking about the 'stresses' of being in the army, and racism towards non-white people. I don't remember such tolerance being shown towards the white prison guards at Abu Ghraib or the Jenin Massacre soldiers or at Fallujah. Is that not inconsistent?
...
At the end of the day, this is about betrayal. The one place in the world where you should be able to rely on your workmates is in the Army, your life is in their hands quite literally. It is a complete denial of that code of honour. This man had no honour, and I'm glad a woman's bullet felled him."
Gates of Vienna
extracts a "word cloud" from
the text of Fort Hood news stories in the media.
Note the prominence of "backlash", "snapped" and "speculation",
indicating the spin the media are putting on this.
More relevant terms like "jihad" and "terrorism" seem to be absent.
Will getting published in an
Al Qaeda magazine make people finally think this was jihad?
Al Qaeda's magazine,
Inspire,
Oct 2010, has a photo of the Fort Hood attacker in their "DIY jihad" article.
Let's listen to dhimmi idiot
Chris Matthews
again:
"We may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood."
McKinley notes that the killer
"yelled "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great" in Arabic - and started shooting".
And yet he then says:
"Yet the gunman and his motive remain an enigma."
This ludicrous article has to be seen to be believed.
It is a case study in why people do not trust the media.
Funny comments, including:
"Motives Unclear in KKK Bombing of Black Birmingham Church."
Hilarious:
A reader emails the journalist:
"You're just another ass hat working at a newspaper gainfully employed to keep people confused."
The journalist allegedly replies:
"Fuck you".
Obama opposed the Iraq War from the start.
He constantly opposed the "surge" that brought about
an incredible victory.
Americans took a terrible risk electing this man
during a war.
Australian Prime Minister
John Howard,
Feb 2007,
on Obama's plan to quit Iraq by Mar 2008:
"I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq,
and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory.
If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008
and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama
but also for the Democrats."
Obama responds
by ridiculing Australia - one of America's only allies in the world.
Like John Kerry, he only has contempt for countries that are fool enough
to support America and fight with it.
Comment:
"You gotta love the Democrats. 'We should have more friends! We need allies!'
'Except the ones we have now -- they can fuck off!'"
Obama, Sept 2007, wants to surrender to the jihad in Iraq immediately.
"There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now."
National Review editors, 27 Oct 2008,
fear that
President Obama will begin the surrender in Iraq:
"He plans to begin drawing down our forces at a rate as brisk as two brigades a month
...
Notwithstanding the success of the surge, Obama's plan has not changed
...
The retreat presumably begins on Day One.
...
As America retreats, remnant al-Qaeda in Iraq elements will have the opportunity to surge, as will those forces backed by the ayatollahs in Iran and others supported by Sunni Arab neighbors. The strategic advantages we have won in the heart of the Middle East - purchased at a terrible price - will be tossed away. The military that could not be defeated by al-Qaeda will be defeated by its own commander-in-chief's folly."
Full round-up of Obama's shallow, changeable, poorly thought out,
and endlessly shifting
positions on Iraq.
Do Americans really want this weak, naive, inexperienced young man in charge of the war?
From the McCain campaign.
Obama speech, February 24th, 2009:
"We are now carefully reviewing our policies in both wars, and I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
Not "wins" this war.
Just "ends" it.
But in the end, the war was already won, so it didn't matter.
In fairness to Obama, he does not want to lose the war.
As President, he has been much more cautious than his awful rhetoric suggested.
He does not want to throw away the success of the surge.
He does the best he can with the material.
No apology for opposing the surge.
No praise for McCain and Bush for supporting it.
No mention of the surge at all.
He summed up the past with no apologies:
"This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It's well-known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush's support for our troops or his love of country and commitment to our security.
As I've said, there were patriots who supported this war and patriots who opposed it."
No apologies,
but still, not bad at all.
He clearly does not want to lose the war.
Senator John Cornyn:
"It's puzzling to listen to this White House try to take credit for the results of the strategy he and Vice President Biden adamantly opposed from the start."
Victory has many fathers. Defeat is an orphan.
Even Newsweek
(issue dated 8 Mar 2010) now thinks Iraq has been won.
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse"
-
Barack Obama, Jan 2007,
on
the surge.
"this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything"
- Harry Reid,
leader of the Democrats in the Senate, April 19, 2007,
expressing how the Democratic party basically gave up on the war.
"We don't need more spin about how the surge is succeeding"
- Obama,
31 May 2008.
Question to Obama, July 2008:
"If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?" Obama:
"No", followed by lots of waffling justification [click on the link to see].
"Let's look at just one example at a lifetime of principled stands that John McCain's brought about: his support for the troop surge in Iraq. The Democratic Party had given up on Iraq.
And I believe, ladies and gentlemen, when they gave up on Iraq, they had given up on America.
...
In the single biggest policy decision of this election, John McCain got it right, and Barack Obama got it wrong."
-
Rudy Giuliani, 3 Sept 2008,
on history's judgement on Obama and the Democratic party.
"Now, we know the surge has worked. Our men and women in uniform know it has worked.
And I promise you, above all others, Al Qaeda knows it has worked.
The only people who deny it are Barack Obama and his buddies at MoveOn.org.
Why won't they admit it? Because Barack Obama's campaign is built around us losing in Iraq.
...
Last summer, we came within two votes - two votes - of a congressionally mandated surrender. One Democrat, one Democrat broke with his party to support the surge. Ladies and gentlemen, thank God for Joe Lieberman.
It was John McCain's voice and credibility that stopped the Democratic Congress from losing this war.
Gen. Petraeus' plan will be a model for generations to come, and our troops will be heroes for the ages. Those who predicted failure, voted to cut off funding for our troops, and played politics with our national security will be
footnotes in history.
...
While Barack Obama expresses appreciation for our troops' service, he refuses to acknowledge their success. They have worked too hard, they have sacrificed too much for a patronizing pat on the back.
...
Not once - not once was Barack Obama's eloquent voice ever raised in support of victory in Iraq.
Not once was it used to rally our troops in battle. Instead, he inspired those who supported retreat and would have accepted our defeat.
We should all be grateful, ladies and gentlemen, that Barack Obama was unable to defeat the surge."
-
Lindsey Graham, 4 Sept 2008.
"Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort."
-
President Obama's hypocritical speech on his Afghan surge, 1 Dec 2009.
Um yes, wasn't it you, and people like you,
that caused this lack of unity and partisan division?
It was people like you who attacked Bush for 8 long years over Iraq, Afghanistan and national security.
And even today, the Republicans will support your Afghan surge.
It's your own party that will oppose it.
"I am very optimistic about - about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of
the great achievements of
this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."
Vice-President
Joe Biden, Feb 2010, tries to claim credit for Bush's success in Iraq.
"Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR, "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said." The Washington Post agreed: "The motive remains unclear ..""
As Spencer says:
"Hasan's motive was perfectly clear - but it was one that the forces of political correctness .. have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened
- and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.
...
The effect of ignoring or downplaying the role that Islamic beliefs and assumptions may have played in his murders only ensures that - once again - nothing will be done to prevent the eventual advent of the next Nidal Hasan."
Since 1995.
