I've been asking myself that question ever since the press conference that Obama held when he finally admitted that "we are at war." You know, the talk he had where he actually seemed serious for the first time after al Qaeda had made a fool of him by almost pulling off the Christmas Day attack.
I looked back at some notes and noticed that in every discussion of terror in this world, the President NEVER mentions the Taliban, Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or any of the countless other islamic terror groups. Certainly it can't all be about 9/11 since many of the other groups have had a devastating effect on American lives both here and in the world.
So WHY is it that Obama targets ONLY Al Qaeda? Oh...one other thing. The other day, Obama said that while there is much concern over the situation in Yemen, he wouldn't plan any troops for Yemen and he was quite emphatic that the key to the whole attack on al Qaeda was the leaders in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He was very specific about the leaders in that border region being his #1 priority. Let's see...by leaders he means Osama bin Laden, of course...but who else is there...hmmm...oh yes, al Qaeda #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The Egyptian. The Doctor.
So, does anyone remember just why Barack Hussein Obama would have such a chip on his shoulder to want al-Zawahiri dead more than anyone?
Let me take you down memory road to November of 2008, shortly after Obama won the Presidential election. Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda said this, from Jawa:
Interesting, don't you think?
I looked back at some notes and noticed that in every discussion of terror in this world, the President NEVER mentions the Taliban, Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or any of the countless other islamic terror groups. Certainly it can't all be about 9/11 since many of the other groups have had a devastating effect on American lives both here and in the world.
So WHY is it that Obama targets ONLY Al Qaeda? Oh...one other thing. The other day, Obama said that while there is much concern over the situation in Yemen, he wouldn't plan any troops for Yemen and he was quite emphatic that the key to the whole attack on al Qaeda was the leaders in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He was very specific about the leaders in that border region being his #1 priority. Let's see...by leaders he means Osama bin Laden, of course...but who else is there...hmmm...oh yes, al Qaeda #2, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The Egyptian. The Doctor.
So, does anyone remember just why Barack Hussein Obama would have such a chip on his shoulder to want al-Zawahiri dead more than anyone?
Let me take you down memory road to November of 2008, shortly after Obama won the Presidential election. Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda said this, from Jawa:
That’s why it wasn’t strange that Malik al-Shabazz (may Allah have mercy on him) was killed, while you have climbed the rungs of the presidency to take over the leadership of the greatest criminal force in the history of mankind and the leadership of the most violent Crusade ever against the Muslims.
And in you and in Colin Powell, Rice and your likes, the words of Malcolm X (may Allah have mercy on him) concerning “House Negroes” are confirmed.You also must appreciate, as you take over the presidency of America during its Crusade against Islam and Muslims, that you are neither facing individuals nor organizations, but are facing a Jihadi awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see.
Interesting, don't you think?
8 comments:
Ok Holger - if the Christmas day attacks "made a fool" of Obama, then how did your boy W. look on 9/11 - a few weeks after he had been handed a memo titled "Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US" - you are reaching with this one.
Last week I heard Obama say "the buck stops here" four words you would never hear W. say.
Rita,
Your boy Obama, all he had to do was keep up the status quo of fighting the terrorists that Bush installed. He has done all he could to dismantle the precautions, the personnel and the goals - so yes, he was made a fool of by al Qaeda. they saw his weaknesses, his errors, his complacency and even some 2 bit rookie trainee got this close to succeeding.
As for Bush, you just said it..."three weeks" - Obama's had 9 years. I know he's slow but that's ridiculous. And let me ask you something. If you had been George Bush and some intelligence had come your way at that time with that general warning, what would have been your first three ideas of how the "attack" would go down?
:Holger Danske
George W. never had many "ideas" about anything. - It was the Bush administration who gave this asshole a visa.
How many Taliban have been killed by US drones since Obama took office? Compare that to the last few Bush years.
W. let Osama escape in Tora Bora- then took his eye off the ball with Iraq.
Rita,
Your living in the past. For the umpteenth time, your boy Obama is Prez now, not Bush. Bush hasn't been President for a year. It's on your guy now and the only thing you have to fire back with is hellfires hitting NW Pakistan - and those are strikes being planned and executed by the CIA which Obama has zip knowledge of and quite frankly, isn't even involved in.
Instead of living in the past Rita, join us in today. The day of terror revitalized because with your vote, you put a green horn commie in the White House that's going to get your loved ones killed.
And you know it.
:Holger Danske
Very interesting Holger. And before we go back to blame Bush, let's go back to Clinton, and the multitudinous opportunities to do something about the people who took out the USS Cole and the First World Trade Towers and the embassies.
Al-Qaeda, as an entity, was known as early as 1996. The intelligence was plentiful, but the administration was timid, and the milk factory rocket had little to do with anything. And...in the first 9 months of Bush's term, before 9/11, had he began intense profiling, airline restrictions - everything we have today - Americans would have been outraged.
About Obama's interest in Ayman al-Zawahiri - that's a terrific connection you have made, and a good reminder of exactly what is coming at us, probably for the rest of our lives:
a Jihadi awakening and renaissance
Holger, when Obama said we are at war...I think he had to say it. I think Abdulmutallab put him in a very difficult place, and a place he did not expect to be. He had to give the American people something, in doing so he took our buck.
Point taken - but I feel like the Republican Party is a bigger threat to my personal freedom (Patriot Act) than Saddam Hussein ever was - so yeah, I voted for Obama, glad I did. Better to die in a terrorist attack under the Constitution my ancestors fought for than live with in a nation when ANY AMERICAN citizen can be put away indefinitely with no trial.
Radical Islamic terrorists will hit us no matter who is president- and y'all know this. So this whole argument (my side of it too) is pointless. There will be a Republican president for the Islamists to "make a fool of" soon enough.
Esquerita, I love your comment (an no scarcasm from this right-winger).
I am uncomfortable about parts of the Patriot Act also, but I would rather have the Patriot Act than be taken out without one.
We have some control over the Patriot Act. It can be changed, amended, done away with, etc. It's obvious Obama does not want to do so.
I think the only President that will be made a fool of, is one that isn't paying attention - like bringing terrorists to NYC for trial.
These are tough times. The conversation is a good one.
Hello.
I peed my pants a little when I saw "Iran" among the list of purported terrorist organizations. Isn't Iran a country? Perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to bash America if certain Americans weren't so quick to generalize entire populations...or religions for that matter.
Ah but imagine that:
A world in which the majority of Americans realize that only a TINY subset of Islamic followers fall under "radical jihadist extremism"...is an enlightened world indeed.
Imagine that. A world in which only terrorists themselves hate the West, while every other TRUE Muslim remains on the morally elevated side of the West.
No, instead, why don't we clump Islam & terrorism together into one term. Let's go ahead and make 1/5 of the world's population hate us, for good reason. How would you feel if a small Christian subset initiated a massive global hatred toward all Christians? The idea probably baffles you, as it should. It's nonsensical - in the very same way it's nonsensical to propagate general anti-Muslim hate here. Don't make snide references to Obama's purported Muslim ties. Who cares? Barack Hussein Obama? Does the obvious emphasis on including 'Hussein' in almost every reference to him serve to say "oh he's Muslim...he's bad."? It's completely counter-productive.
Perhaps your expressed ideals would be realized faster if you dropped all the useless anti-Muslim baggage overboard. Why relate Muslims to terrorism when in fact they fundamentally have nothing in common? Superficially, sure: Some nut imam tries to commandeer people through false Islamic teachings & interpretations of Jihad... SO you then proceed to brand Islam as terrible? Why not instead strive to combat this form of misinformation with POSITIVE educational information?
Take a progressive step and realize that these very groups you're targeting - the Taliban & Al Qaeda - are the same ones who want you to believe that jihadist terrorism is an "Islamic" thing. It's not.
I guess that's my random rant for this week. It probably won't be received very well, but hey, that's cool, because it sure is easier to press that good ol' "hater" button, yeah? I'm probably some weak-minded, pussy-ass LIBERAL, huh? For the record, just to be clear: 1) I'm conservative. 2) I'm American. 3) I believe that if everyone were educated, 95% of our problems would be solvable. Cheers.
Anonymously yours,
__________
Post a Comment