Monday, January 3, 2011

Obama Does Not Grasp Terrorism

Obama doesn’t get terrorism. He never has. He doesn’t grasp the nature of terrorism, or why it’s wrong, and it truly doesn’t seem to bother him that people are killed. Indeed, he’s bothered more that his political “enemies” would disagree with his agenda than he is by the brutal murders committed by terrorists.

The evidence that Obama doesn’t see terrorists for what they are has been building since the beginning of his administration. Indeed:

● We all know about Team Obama’s attempt to rename “terrorism” to downplay it. Specifically, they tried to substitute the term “man made disaster” and they ordered Federal agencies to stop using the term “terrorism.”

● We know that Obama took a couple of days before he even bothered acknowledging the Christmas bomber, because the potential murder of Americans wasn’t as important to him as his vacation.

● We’ve seen his advisors pretend to be entirely stumped by what could possibly be motivating Islamic terrorists. . . the same Islamic terrorists who issue statements saying they are acting in the name of Islam against the enemies of Islam. Yep, no clue.

● We’ve seen Team Obama act as if they had no idea why Islamic terrorist Hassan shot and killed American soldiers, and they cautioned us not to jump to conclusions.

● We’ve seen them all-but-ignore an Islamic murderer who killed an Army recruiter while they played up a lone, lunatic gunman who shot up the Holocaust Museum.

● We’ve seen Obama more concerned about Americans theoretically retaliating against Muslims than he was that Islamic terrorists were killing Americans.
Now we have more evidence that Obama does not understand terrorism from Obama’s response to the New Year attacks in Alexandria, Egypt and Nigeria. Consider this:

The statement is 205 words long but does not once mention Islam, except to say that Muslims were injured. This is like condemning "the deaths of some people in Poland in 1939, including some Germans." The statement also never once calls these terrorists “terrorists,” it calls them “perpetrators” and “those who carry out these attacks,” which demonstrates an incredible degree of detachment in Obama's mind between the actions and the responsibility for those actions. Indeed, this is eerily close to suggesting that the events happened without intent.

Now compare this with Obama’s standard rhetoric where he describes Americans who disagree with him as “those who oppose” and where he called them "enemies." Rhetorically, he is actually describing his political opponents in similar or harsher terms than he uses to describe the terrorists. This shows a disturbing sense of equivalence in Obama's mind between political opposition and terrorism.

Further, when it comes to describing what the terrorists have done, Obama says only that these “perpetrators” have “no respect for human life or dignity.” No sh~t? So it’s their lack of respect that matters. . . not the fact they have brutally and indiscriminately killed and maimed people to impose their sick beliefs? Not only should this shock you in terms of how wrong Obama’s views are, i.e. he does not understand what is actually wrong with terrorism, but it should also shock you that he is again treating terror and political opposition as morally equivalent. Indeed, Obama has often spoken of "those who oppose" lacking respect for human life and dignity because they oppose his policies. In other words, he's using the same rhetoric to describe terrorist acts as he routinely uses to describe his opponents' opposition to his policies -- opponents that he often describes as hostage takers. . . a harsher description than he's willing to use on terrorists.

Moreover, Obama says that these attacks “demonstrate the bankrupt vision of those who carry out these attacks.” Bankrupt vision? Are you kidding me? This is political verbiage that is used by wonks to describe the political policies of the other side. This is not something you say about terrorists, anymore than you say it about serial killers or bank robbers or hostage takers: terrorists have no vision and they are offering no agenda. They are seeking to kill enough and to terrorize enough that their targets submit to their will. There is no vision. And for Obama to suggest that they are even offering a vision shows that he fundamentally does not understand what terrorists are.

Additionally, to describe this “vision” as “bankrupt” shows even further the moral equivalency Obama sees between politics and terrorism. “Bankrupt” is a term that means “without value” or “worthless,” it does not imply any moral distinction -- that's why people say "morally bankrupt" when they want to imply a value judgment. For Obama to use the term “bankrupt” when Obama should be using a term like “evil” shows that Obama does not see terrorism as morally wrong. . . he just sees their cause as flawed.

So consider what Obama has said here. He fails to call these terrorists “terrorists,” he fails to make any reference to them being Islamic terrorists, and he describes their crime as being a lack of respect for human life and dignity or as having a viewpoint or agenda that lacks merit. That’s not how anyone should describe the cold-blooded, intentional murder of strangers to further the goal of forcing a society to submit to their own twisted beliefs.

This tells us that Obama fundamentally lacks an understanding of what terrorism is or why it’s wrong. And if he can't understand that, then he is the one who has no real respect for human life or dignity. Add in that Obama repeatedly demonstrates that he sees an equivalence between terrorists and his political opponents, and in fact reserves harsher rhetoric for his political opponents, and we are left with only one conclusion: there is something fundamentally wrong within this man.


Tennessee Jed said...

It is puzzling, for sure, Andrew. And yet, Obama is not stupid. Several theories have been offered, but since I cannot read his mind are difficult to know with any certainty:

1) Obama has more sympathy with Islam than Christianity of the "Black Liberation" theology of Jeremiah Wright his "crazy family uncle." This theory seems to be offered by birthers and Sean Hannity, and while it sounds crazy on it's face, would help explain such behavior.

2) Rush Limbaugh's "cut America down to size" theory. He hates what is represented by the euro-centric rise of the U.S.A. and it's exploitation of everyone else to get to the top. If America is stripped of wealth and power, it could create a more level playing field for African Americans.

3) He thinks he so "all that" because of the sycophant media during the campaign that the world is indeed his oyster and he can charm the world with his unparalleled greatness.

Who knows for sure. All I really know is I am so tired of him. Not since Tiger Woods has a public figure been so totally overexposed. It has nothing to do with their race, nor would I disagree their accomplishments are extraordinary. But over-exposure from an adoring press usually leads to a downfall.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, I'm less bothered by this than some other aspects of the man. That is, I agree his stance (or rather lack of a stance) on terrorism is disgusting, but this is a malady we've seen in numerous members of both parties, the media, the bureaucracy, and even, sadly enough, some levels of the military. If it wasn't for what we know of Obama's early years, I'd say he suffers from the same problem as these other individuals, which is that he's had his head in the sand and/or up his #$&@ so long the lack of oxygen is killing his brain cells.

Unfortunately, we do have to factor in his early years, in which he was raised by godless Marxists, attended a madrassa, was a student of Edward "All Westerners are Evil" Said, and attended Jerry Wright's cult, I mean church. This leads me to believe that there is some combo of Jed's first two theories, and that Obama genuinely sees America as the biggest problem in the world. You know what? I take my intro back. This is kind of a big deal.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I can't read his mind either, so my guess at his motivation is just that -- a guess. I suspect the answer is a little bit of all of that, with one major addition: I think the reason he's not really bothered by terrorism is the people he associated with when he was younger. Don't forget that he hung out with people like Bill Ayers, who saw terrorism as a legitimate tool to use against a government of which they did not approve.

Thus, I suspect that he is not fundamentally repulsed by the idea of killing people for political reasons. And once you take that fundamental repulsion away, it becomes very easy see terrorism as just another tool of political opposition. . . an extreme one, but an acceptable one.

Add in that I think he does have an anti-American foundation to his thinking, first because of "daddy issues," secondly because of the black liberation theology, and third because the people he hung out with have hated everything about America for so long, that he really would not mind seeing America changed and "lowered" to the level of other countries.

Thus, he has some sympathy for the goals of these "oppressed" people and it really doesn't bother him -- it also explains why he's more concerned with Americans retaliating than he is with the terrorism itself, and why the only times he's been able to work himself up over terrorism when it involves the killing of "innocent people" in Africa.

This is what I think drives him and this is why he can't get himself worked up about terrorism.

But rest assured that if this was white Europeans blowing up black populations to force Africans to accept something like Christianity, he would be outraged because that would be "oppressors" murdering "innocents" in an attempt to impose an "oppressive theology."

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I see this as a big deal because it tells us something about Obama that is fundamentally dangerous. When you start listing people from the past who were indifferent to political murders, the names that come up are all terrorists, Marxists, Nazis, and communists. And once these people decided that some people had to die so they could get their policies in place, it wasn't much of a stretch for them to decide that 10 million had to die. And their sympathizers here spent decades lying for these people to cover up their crimes.

Moreover, this exposed something that should give us all pause. If he truly is not bothered by "oppressed people" blowing things up as a protest against "evil America," then this is not a man we can trust to protect this country or its people or act in their best interests. When you add in some of the people he's appointed -- Marxists, race haters, Mao-admirers, redistributionists, etc., you have to begin to wonder if he isn't working to actively undermine our country. . . a judgment born out by many of his actions, such as alienating our overseas allies, weakening our military, bankrupting our government, trying to crash the borders to un-American America, etc.

There is much repair work that we will need to do once he's out of office.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: After his first and only term, Obama could become the new poster boy for Mad Magazine--Alfred E. Obama. Just change the hopeychange to "what, me worry?"

AndrewPrice said...

I think they've already done that Lawhawk.

Ed said...

I'm not surprised. Everything about Obama tells us he doesn't care about people and he especially doesn't care about America or American lives.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, That does seem to fit. Don't forget that his wife made that slip about finally being proud of America. These aren't people who care deeply about this country.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, good points. But hey, after all, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Let's see...who else said that...

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Thanks. I think they're valid point, they just don't make me very happy, that's for sure.

As for the quote, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Biden -- he can make an omelet and have his eggs too, at least so he says. ;-)

CrispyRice said...

Interesting analogy between the terrorists and the "enemies" are out there right now committing thought crimes!

I'm with all 3 of Jed's theories. I think due to #3, he is in for a super big shock once Congress comes into session this week. He thought he had it tough before? It's gonna get ugly. (Or at least, well, it better! LOL!)

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, Thanks!

I think you're right about the new Congress. Obama's entire history shows that he does not accept anyone disagreeing with him. He gets angry and nasty about it and then basically holds his breath until he gets his way and is told that he's the greatest creature to ever inhabit the planet. The Republicans aren't going to cave in like everyone else has in the past. So I think this is going to be a very difficult year for him.

DUQ said...

Great point about Obama seeing their crime being a lack of respect for life rather than a willingness to engage in cold blooded murder, and really good analogy with criminals. How ridiculous would be it sound if he said that a serial killer lacked respect for human life? I can't imagine him saying something that stupid, except when he talks about terrorism.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks DUQ. I think that shows very effective how his thought process differs on these issues. He knows he need to use "negative phrases" to describe terror, so he reaches for something that sounds bad if you don't think about it, but isn't really that bad. None of his comments fit together or make sense in a group. He just speaks to speak.

Janet said...

I don't think it's valid to take a single statement and parse it for meaning on a word for word basis. He does condemn these actions. He does not condemn them. It is not valid to argue that his condemnation is not strong enough.

Anonymous said...

So true Andrew. When Obama said "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger" that tells me pretty much what his thoughts are on terrorism.

How do you "absorb" the death of a loved one from a terriorist attack? We shouldn't have to absorb anything.


JB1000 said...

When I heard the quote about 'absorbing a terrorist attack' my first thought was, "I wonder if it would be "No big deal" if the terrorist attack was on the school his daughters attended?

I suspect it would be a much bigger deal, in that case.

AndrewPrice said...

Janet, It's absolutely valid. All that we have to judge people on are their words and their deeds. The words are the windows into the mind. Yes, some people are not articulate and it's unfair to parse their words when it's clear that they aren't able to be precise -- in those cases, you have to look at patterns or larger thoughts. But when you're talking about a carefully written statement, which was reviewed a dozen times and approved, and every word within that statement sends the same message of indifference or equivalence, then you can start to reach conclusions -- especially where this is part of a pattern with Obama. The only times he reacts with emotion is when he gets angry that he doesn't get his own way. If the murder of innocent people can't make him angry or sicken him, then it is valid to conclude that he simply does not care.

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Thanks! And you're absolutely right. That is the language of a cold-hearted calculator -- he sees this simply as a mathematical equation that weighs the economic costs of the terror against the costs of making a change. There is no room in his equation for our humanity and for the personal feelings of those who lose loved ones. In other words, we're all just economic inputs to him, part of a larger society/machine and we don't matter as individuals to him. And that's not the kind of man we want as President.

AndrewPrice said...

JB, That's a very good point. And that's one of the problems with guys like Obama. He doesn't care about us, he doesn't know right from wrong, he can't sympathize or empathize. So he won't do the things he should be doing to protect us, because we don't matter.

BUT, when someone like him gets hurt personally, then they swing the other direction and they don't care how many of the rest of us they hurt trying to get even for what has been done to them. Thus, there is no telling how he would react at that point, except that it's a pretty good guess he wouldn't be thinking about our interests then either.

Either way, he's not the guy you want in charge.

Janet said...

I still believe that you are reading too much into a single statement. He is fighting terrorism. He has not given up or endorced their goals or told us we would need to accept their goals. Until he does that, I think it is unfair to assume that he does not care about protecting Americans.

AndrewPrice said...

Janet, I have to admit that I find this a strange argument for a liberal to make. If a sports announcer uses a racist or seemingly-racist term one single time -- even if they apologize immediately, liberals instantly know what's in their hearts and want them fired and shamed out of the public sphere. The attack on Palin was not just what she said, but what Tina Fey said, which was attributed to Palin as a "I can just see her saying that." Yet, when it comes to Obama, we're supposed to ignore a pattern of events and words, and a carefully crafted statement wherein every word confirms that pattern, and then his heartless quote about absorbing a terrorist attack and we're supposed to take it on faith that somehow nothing he said really means anything?

I would hope you would see the contradiction in that?

Post a Comment