Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery . . .
Obama's Legitimate Causes
Obama’s
comments
about "legitimate causes" of terror groups and "root problems of causes
and dangers" seems to echo little-noticed remarks the presidential
candidate made eight days after 9/11 in which he said the attacks were
carried out because of a lack of "empathy for others" suffering on the
part of al-Qaeda, whose terrorist ideology "grows out of a climate of
poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."
Obama went on to imply the Sept. 11 attacks were, in part, a result of
U.S. policy, lecturing the American military to minimize civilian
casualties in the Middle East and urging action opposing ‘bigotry or
discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern
descent.’
"Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved
families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of
wisdom from this tragedy," Obama wrote in a piece about 9/11 published
Sept. 19, 2001, in Chicago’s Hyde Park Herald.
Obama may not be a Muslim, but he certainly is
sympathetic.
Obama's Empathy
In this video, Obama comments on the five Muslim-American jihadists
from the Washington, DC area, who were
arrested in Pakistan,
and who said they were on jihad.
"I prefer not to comment" (01:39)
"I prefer not to comment."
There he goes again, covering up for the
brothers just like he did for the jihadist, Nidal Hassan,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here. Obama never
has a bad word for Muslims. He's just one big apologist for jihad,
Sooner or later Obama's Muslim empathy and sympathy
is going to blow up right in his face, and a lot more Americans will be
dead. Just look at the
recent instances of jihad provided by Pamela Geller, at Atlas Shrugs
-- no doubt Obama doesn't want to comment on these events either.
Just listen to Obama's comments:
"...what has been
remarkable...is the extraordinary accomplishments of American Muslims...how
they have been woven into the fabric of our nation...fierce loyalty to America,
their patriotism...blah, blah, blah..."
What nonsense! Just
check out these
American Muslims protesting against America -- "fierce loyalty to America,
their patriotism" -- just who does Obama think he's fooling?
The responsible party? Obama blames the world-wide web for
American jihadiis.
Borrowing the tag line from Flip Wilson's
Geraldine character -- "the debil made me do it" -- Obama apologizes --
"the Internet made them do it" -- this would be funny if it weren't so
deadly serious.
Obama concludes:
"I think WE have a good story to tell here
and one WE need to build on."
What's all this WE stuff? Has Obama got a
mouse in his pocket? Just who is WE?
That pronoun could be
interpreted to mean Americans -- it could also be interpreted to mean
Muslims -- remember, "it
all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." These pols are highly
skilled at using the language to deceive.
For almost two years, I
have resisted labeling Obama a Muslim -- even though Muslims
think he's a Muslim -- but I'm 99% sure he's not a Christian.
There's no record of a baptism, anywhere, and strolling down the
aisle of a black-nationalist church and pledging allegiance to the Black
Value System does not a Christian make. At the core of Obama's
faith -- whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two
-- is African nativism. In the paperback version of "The Audacity
of Hope," in the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on page 195, and
ending on page 208, Obama is telling us that he doesn’t really have any
profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he
needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred."
The Jesuits would
say, "Give me the child, and I will mold the man."
Easy On The Enemy -- Obama's Attempt To Impress Liberals
Just whom are we trying to impress?
That's a question that
occurred to me when, on his second full day in the presidency, Barack
Obama announced we would close the Guantanamo detainee facility within
one year.
It's a question that has kept occurring to me over the
last year and nine days, even though Obama and his administration have
proved unable to keep that promise.
Whom are we trying to
impress by ruling out enhanced interrogation techniques on unlawful
combatants, techniques that produced valuable intelligence that saved
American lives? Whom are we trying to impress by limiting
questioning to the Army Field Manual?
That's a good guide for
handling prisoners of war and other lawful combatants covered by
international law. But whom are we trying to impress by extending
those protections to those who are not covered by the Geneva Conventions
or other treaties we have signed?
Whom are we trying to impress
by trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts after he already pled
guilty to a military tribunal? And trying him in New York City,
where the trial will cost something like $1 billion and tie up Lower
Manhattan for years?
Would these people we are trying to impress
be that much less impressed if the administration belatedly follows the
advice of Mayor Bloomberg and Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and
stages that trial on a military base or elsewhere outside of New York
City?
And whom are we trying to impress by treating the failed
Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab not as a military combatant
but as a common civilian criminal, even though he launched an attack on
America from outside the country? Whom are we trying to impress by
administering Miranda warnings and telling him that he has a right to a
lawyer and the right to remain silent?
If the answer to these
questions is that we are trying to impress Islamist terrorists, we've
clearly failed.
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say that when Obama's leading
counter-terrorism staff member, John Brennan, says that "politically
motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of
al-Qaida," he has it exactly backward.
It is Obama's efforts to
crow about how effective he is in fighting terrorism that are helping
al-Qaida. What kind of policy is it to announce to the world that
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Nigerian terrorist who attempted to blow
up a plane as it approached Detroit this past Christmas, is talking to
investigators and giving them much valuable information?
Obama's
people put the story out to counter accusations that their decision to
try Mutallab in a civilian court and to permit him access to an attorney
jeopardized efforts to interrogate him. Stung by the charge that
they were blowing a chance to learn about subsequent al-Qaida plans,
they told the media that Mutallab was being very cooperative, especially
after a visit from his family.
While releasing this information
may help Obama politically and certainly pushes back those of us who
criticized him for handling the Mutallab case civilly, it provides
al-Qaida with a timely warning that we are on to their plans and that
Mutallab has explained to us what they have up their sleeves. In
counter-terrorism, knowing your enemy's plans is key to thwarting them.
And, if al-Qaida knows that we are prepared, they will, obviously,
change their plans.
Mike Adams
says Obama is a dishonest man. He is also a poor excuse for a
constitutional law scholar. Both of these accusations can be
supported by looking at his handling of the recent controversies
involving the Ground Zero mosque and an unhinged pastor’s planned
burning of the Koran.
When the Ground Zero mosque controversy
broke out, Obama had this to say about religious freedom:
"As a citizen, and as President, I believe
that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as
everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to
build a place of worship and a community center on private property
in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.
This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must
be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are
welcome in this country and that they will not be treated
differently by their government is essential to who we are."
A few weeks later, when the Koran-burning
controversy broke out, Obama had this to say about religious freedom:
"If he's listening, I hope he understands
that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values
as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion
of freedom and religious tolerance."
What Obama should have said was that Muslims a)
Have a legal right to engage in offensive religious expression by
building a mosque near Ground Zero but that b) It would be a very bad
idea to do so because it would make Muslims look like uncouth
barbarians.
Obama could have then maintained consistency by
saying that Christians a) Have a legal right to engage in offensive
religious expression by burning the Koran but that b) It would be a very
bad idea to do so because it would make Christians look like uncouth
barbarians.
Instead, Obama took the position that the Mosque
building is a form of free religious expression while the Koran burning
is an attack on free religious expression. Is there any
explanation for holding these two positions simultaneously? Sure
there is.
The common thread between Obama’s two positions is
favoritism of Islam. Barack Obama was
educated in a Koranic school as a child in Indonesia. He
subsequently claimed to have rejected Islam in favor of Christianity in
what some consider to have been
an insincere political move. That
may sound harsh but consider this alternative: If Obama actually did
convert to Christianity, the document he defends, The Koran, would call
for his execution.
But Obama does not invoke allegiance to Islam
as justification for his opposition to the burning of the Koran.
Instead, he invokes fear of Islam. He suggests that Muslims may
kill our troops in response to the Koran burning.
There are real
reasons to question whether the burning of the Koran in Florida would
actually endanger our troops by pushing potential extremists over the
edge. But the real flaw in Obama’s rhetoric is not factual.
It is legal.
The mere suggestion that a potentially violent
action in response to free speech can actually negate free speech is
old. It is a notion known as the
heckler’s veto.
As a constitutional law instructor, Obama knows that the U. S.
Constitution does not allow a heckler’s veto over free speech. The
idea that there might be a violent response to free speech cannot be
allowed to negate free speech. To rule otherwise would be to
reward violence.
That is why Obama was wrong to say that Koran
burning is contrary to our American values of freedom. Islamic
violence in response to offensive speech is contrary to our American
values of freedom.
Obama Won't Condemn Jihad
Jim Hoft
says Barack Obama would not condemn "jihad" and said he regretted
that the "great religion" of Islam has been distorted by a few
extremists today.
Those "few extremists" have
carried out 16,350
deadly attacks since 9-11.
Barack Obama on Sunday regretted that the
"great religion" of Islam has been distorted by a few extremists to
justify violence towards innocent people and called for isolating
these elements.
Obama also said that people will have to
fundamentally reject the notion that violence is the way to mediate
differences among them.
"I think all of us have to
fundamentally reject the notion that violence is the way to mediate
our differences," he added.
Obama expressed these views when
a Muslim student A. Ansari lobbed a question asking for his views on
jihad during his interaction with students of St Xavier’s college
here.
"I think all of us recognize that this great religion
(Islam) in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to
justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified,"
he said.
"So, one of the challenges the world faces is how to
"isolate" those who have these distorted notions of religious
war…and reaffirm those who see faces of all sorts whether you are a
Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian and a Jew or any other religion
that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity,"
he added.
Obama said the phrase "Jihad" has different
interpretations. Islam is one of the great religions and
majority of its one billion practices believe in peace, justice and
tolerance, he added.
Daniel Pipes says jihad is "holy war." Or,
more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to
expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories
ruled by non-Muslims.
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is
not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim
power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus
unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving
Muslim dominion over the entire globe.
Jihad did have two variant
meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first
holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels
and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians,
Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and
Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second
meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad
as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly
concerns to achieve spiritual depth.
Jihad in the sense of
territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the
time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later,
Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently,
jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as
India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.
Today, jihad is the
world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of
violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:
• The International Islamic Front for
the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's
organization; • Laskar Jihad: responsible for the
murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia; •
Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel
terrorist group of them all; • Egyptian Islamic Jihad:
killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and •
Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.
But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in
Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad,
Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government
auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted
their belongings and killed their males.
Jihadists then enslaved
tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to
Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard
labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape,
genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.
Sudan's
state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the
displacement of another 4 million -- making it the greatest humanitarian
catastrophe of our era.
Despite jihad's record as a leading
source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering,
academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive
fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent.
Bruce Walker
says the Left's obsession with
focusing on dangerous things, rather than dangerous people, shows up in
different ways. Bombs, for example, are designed to be safe.
My father served at Fort Sill Army Base during part of his time in
military service. That base is home to the United States Army
Field Artillery School. In addition, every Marine trains in field
artillery trains at Fort Sill, as do friendly military forces from other
nations. The sheer amount of potential destructive power in the
hands of these young men dwarfs everything that each terrorist group in
the Middle East could ever muster. Yet Fort Sill is a very safe
place to be. Extreme caution is taken to make sure that the vast
munitions at this base are no threat to anyone. Why? The
people with artillery are the good guys. Artillery shells don't
kill people; bad guys do.
The whole dreary debate over gun
control smacks of the same tone-deaf Leftist foolishness.
Americans grew up with guns, and often guns much less safe than those
made today. Young boys went out and hunted game. Many
families grew up with rifles or shotguns on racks in the living room.
When people owned guns and knew how to use the guns safely, the danger
of violent crime was much lower than today. The violent crime rate
in America has increased by 170% since 1960 despite the increased number
of federal and state gun control laws. Guns did not cause these
crimes; criminals did. Treating all Americans like criminals did
not make us safer at all.
The leftist lunacy when it comes to
potentially dangerous things and genuinely dangerous people was rampant
during the Cold War. Nuclear weapons, silly people across the Free
World told us, were a grave danger to the survival of mankind. Yet
what sane person lost a wink of sleep because France had 482 nuclear
warheads, or because Britain had 200 nuclear warheads? It was
inconceivable that either nation, which had the power to kill perhaps
100 million people in an hour, would ever do so. Israel has a
significant number of nuclear weapons, and so does India. Those
nations would use their weapons only as a last resort.
The danger
during the Cold War was the result of a totalitarian power possessing
large numbers of nuclear weapons. When the Soviet Union collapsed,
the danger of nuclear war diminished astronomically. As North
Korea increases its puny nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, the world
faces real and great danger -- not because of the things (the nuclear
weapons), but rather because of the people involved (tormented slaves of
an erratic Eastern potentate garbed in the risible "science" of Karl
Marx). The danger of fission weapons (atomic bombs), fusion
weapons (hydrogen bombs), biological weapons, and chemical weapons is
the malice of those who possess it. Weapons of mass destruction do
not kill people; mad tyrants do.
This is precisely the disconnect
which the Left faces with airport security and passenger examinations.
The danger is not that someone will bring a handgun, a knife, or even an
explosive on an airliner. Properly stored and maintained, none of
these will do the slightest harm to anyone. In fact, if every
passenger on September 11, 2001 had been armed, the terrorists would
almost certainly have been stopped. Disarming the innocent never
stops violence.
Moreover, the "things" which can be used to
cause injury are as endless as human imagination, and in the hands of
terrorists, almost anything can be used to murder large numbers of
people. The variety of methods and tools of destruction are as
broad as the bored minds of evil men. Anyone who has toured a
prison can hear from guards about the remarkable ingenuity with which
inmates can make real-looking "guns" or very real knives and other
weapons.
The only way remove enough of the "things" which
threaten air travel would be to strip-search every passenger, issue
official garb (like inmates in prison or in a mental institution), and
haul these passengers in an environment as sterile and as stark as the
suicide watch cell of a county jail. We know, of course, the sane,
humane, and easy way to make us safe: profile and research passengers.
Before that happens, however, the Left must realize that life is full of
"things" and that these are almost never the real problem. Neither
the Holocaust nor the Gulag was a product of railroads and cattle cars.
Those horrors were, as with the terrorists who would murder young
children flying to Grandmother for Thanksgiving, the product of
monsters. The way to end their evil is to defeat them.
Obama's Cover-Up Of Jihad
Pamela Geller has posted a video of the
terrorist attack on a Christian church in Egypt that shows the car
explosion and Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar"
Obama's condemnation of the Islamic attacks on Christmas and New
Year's was grotesque, misleading and deceptive. This is the Obama's
statement on the terrorist attacks in Egypt and Nigeria
"I
strongly condemn the separate and outrageous terrorist bombing attacks
in Egypt and Nigeria. The attack on a church in Alexandria, Egypt caused
21 reported deaths and dozens of injured from both the Christian and
Muslim communities."
Geller says these were jihadist attacks against
Christians. Islamic supremacists slaughtering non-Muslims, and
asks, "Does Obama
mourn the deaths of the homicide bombers as well?" This is a very
dangerous man.
The Muslim authorities were in
on it. Egyptian security guards withdrew one hour before the church
blast, say eyewitnesses.
The car explosion that went off in front
of Saints Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria killed 21 and injured 96
parishioners who were attending a New Year's Eve Mass. According to
church officials and eyewitnesses, there are many more victims that are
still unidentified and whose body parts were strewn all over the street
outside the church. The body parts were covered with newspapers until
they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping
on them and chanting Jihadist chants.
According to eyewitnesses, a
green Skoda car pull up outside the church shortly after midnight. Two
men got out, one of them talked shortly on his mobile phone, and the
explosion occurred almost immediately after they left the scene. On the
back of the Skoda was a sticker with the words "the rest is coming."
Remember this? On November 6, 2009, the day after Maj. Nidal
Hasan's jihad on Ft. Hood, Barack Obama urged Americans not to jump to
conclusions.
That was then. Now?
After the Tucson Tragedy? Crickets . . .
Obama's Islamic Tilt In Egypt
Tom Tancredo
says the difference between Jimmy Carter's mistakes in handling the
1979 revolution in Iran and Obama's handling of the 2011 revolution in
Egypt is that Carter's team made mistakes out of ignorance and naiveté.
Thirty-one years later, Obama's diplomatic team cannot claim naiveté in
dealing with the Muslim
Brotherhood and the radical Islamists. Obama is consciously
supporting the Islamists in Egypt and facilitating their rise to power.
How else can one explain the extraordinary statements of James
Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence, in his testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee, that the Muslim Brotherhood is
a "secular organization" that has "eschewed violence?" They
operate hospitals in Egypt, so they must be peace-loving humanitarians?
Hamas operates charities in the Gaza territory, so they are not really
dedicated to the destruction of Israel?
We might forgive some
American citizens for being confused about the character and goals of
some Islamic organizations disguised as charities, but don't we expect
more from our intelligence community? As one wit has already
observed following Clapper's testimony, we might as well abolish
Clapper's agency and save the taxpayers $40 billion if this is the
quality of intelligence our policymakers are getting from that
bureaucracy.
Clapper's statements, made this past week at the
height of the Egyptian crisis, might be excused or explained away if
they were an isolated incident. But his statements are part of a
pattern of mischaracterizing and underestimating the threat from radical
Islam. Clapper's testimony can only be viewed as part of the Obama
administration's persistent efforts to humanize the Muslim Brotherhood
and prepare the ground for a new Islamist-run Egyptian government.
In his televised
interview on
Super Bowl Sunday with Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly, Obama specifically
included the Muslim Brotherhood in the groups that must be included in
any new Egyptian government. This is the equivalent of President
Woodrow Wilson welcoming the Bolsheviks into the Russian government in
1917.
Obama went to Cairo in 2009 to deliver his first speech on
foreign soil, a speech that was billed as his "outreach to the Muslim
world." Obama specifically requested that representatives of the
Muslim Brotherhood be invited to the speech.
In 2005
parliamentary elections in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 percent
of the vote by putting on a moderate face and talking about social
reforms and civil liberties. But in 2008 they replaced their
leadership with a more fundamentalist, less secular group that has
renewed the call for Shariah law and a turn away from Western civil
institutions. Surely, our intelligence community knows this.
Today in Egypt, there are a dozen or more secular, reformist parties
that will seek public support in the next elections. We have to
ask, why is the Obama administration favoring the Muslim Brotherhood and
insisting that they be included in any constitutional reform committee?
Napolitano Covers For Jihad -- Again
Republican lawmakers chided Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano
Wednesday for not being frank about the nature of the terrorist threat
posed by radical Islamist groups and for allowing "political
correctness" to hamper the work of her department.
"We’ve got
to focus on those people who are going to do us harm," Rep. Paul Broun,
Georgia Republican, told a hearing of the House Committee on Homeland
Security, "And this administration and your department has seemed to be
very averse to focusing on those."
Part of the problem, Broun
said, was the department’s apparent unwillingness to name "the
ideological factor behind" the terrorist threat, "namely Islamic
extremism."
Napolitano defended the Department of Homeland
Security, saying, "Hundreds of thousands of men and women come to work
every day to protect the American people."
Napolitano said the
use of the term "violent extremism" rather than "jihadi" or "Islamist"
to describe the terror threat was driven by concern that officials "not
overlook other types of extremism that can be homegrown and that we,
indeed, have experiences with."
In other responses, she
emphasized that the administration sees Islamic extremists as only one
among several terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland.
"Many kinds
of violent motivations threaten our security," she said. "We see a
variety of different types."
Her prepared testimony referenced a
report last year by the Institute for Homeland Security Solutions that
examined 86 U.S. terrorism cases between 1999 and 2009 and found that
nearly half were related to al Qaeda or al Qaeda-inspired ideology, with
the remainder a result of "a number of other violent extremist
motivations" such as white supremacist, animal rights, anti-abortion or
"militia/anti-government" ideologies.
Talk about comparing apples to
oranges! Animal rights? What nonsense!
She told the hearing that her department is focused on giving tools to
local law enforcement so they could spot "the tactics, the techniques,
the behaviors that would indicate that a violent act, a terrorist act is
impending," regardless of motivation.
"Some of those [attacks]
are inspired by Islamist groups. Others can be inspired by, like,
anti-government groups -- flying a plane into the [Internal Revenue
Service] building, for example," she said, referring to an incident in
February 2010 when software engineer Joseph Stack crashed a small plane
into a federal building, killing himself and an IRS employee.
Peter Wilson
says an Islamic terrorist described as a "21-year-old Kosovar who
lives in Frankfurt," opened fire at the Frankfurt Airport, killing two
American soldiers, and wounding two others. Kosovo's population is
80% Muslim. The New York Times reports that "the gunman first
talked to the military personnel to find out who they were and then
opened fire, shouting 'God is greatest' in Arabic."
Obama
mentioned the incident at a press conference:
"I want to take a brief moment just to say a
few words about a tragic event that took place earlier today in
Frankfurt, Germany... We don't have all the information yet, and you
will be fully briefed as we get more information, but this is a
stark reminder of the extraordinary sacrifices that our men and
women in uniform are making all around the world to keep us safe,
and the dangers that they face all around the globe."
Once again, Obama and the ObamaMedia -- even the
report on Fox News -- scrupulously avoid the words "Muslim," "Islam," or
"jihad" and reference to any possible religious motive for the attack.
It is true that we don't have "all the information" -- not that this has
been any impediment in the past for Obama to shoot off his mouth -- but
we do have some extremely strong evidence that the man was an Islamic
terrorist. Obama however sticks to vague generalities and switches
the focus away from the murderer toward the sacrifices of the victims.
"A tragic event?" "A stark reminder" of "sacrifices" to "keep
us safe" from "dangers?" No, Mr. Obama, it's a stark reminder that
the world is full of Muslim males in their twenties who believe that
Allah has commanded them to murder Americans.
Obama will never point the finger
at Islam, Muslims or jihad. Never! It doesn't matter how
many times these 7th century savages kill Americans -- or others.
Obama will
continue to talk about the Muslim's contributions to "American
Dream."
Remember Maj. Nidal
Hasan, the Ft. Hood jihadist that handed out "Soldiers of Allah"
business cards,
and who murdered 13 and wounded 30 more while screaming "Allahu Akbar?"
His jihad
attack was
formally classified as "workplace violence," and there was no
mention of jihad. None! According to the Obama
administration, Hasan
had a bad day.
Obama’s State Of Islamic Denial
The Washington Times
has a clue for Barack: "Allahu akbar" is the Islamists' war cry.
U.S. troops are gunned down by a shooter who screams "Allahu akbar!"
before opening fire. Official statements are rushed out: The
perpetrator was a lone wolf; his motive was unclear; there are no links
to terrorism. Sound familiar? It should, because when Islam
is the cause of American tragedy, Obama hides his head in the sand.
On Wednesday, a young Kosovar named Arif Uka opened fire on a bus
load of U.S. Air Force personnel in Frankfurt, Germany, killing two and
wounding two more. Witnesses say he repeatedly shouted the
jihadist battle cry, "Allahu akbar" as he emptied his weapon and
screamed "Jihad! Jihad!" when tackled by German police. Uka’s
victims had been heading to the fight in Afghanistan but because the
jihadists have a global battlespace, the war came to them instead.
Obama made a typical noncommittal statement shortly after the
shooting, saying it was a "stark reminder of the extraordinary
sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making all around the
world to keep us safe, and the dangers that they face all around the
globe." He made no mention of the nature of the threat or the
reason for the sacrifices. In this respect, he was behaving true
to form.
The Frankfurt shooting is the latest in a troubling
series of jihadist terror attacks in which the Obama administration
refuses to face reality. Among the first was the June 1, 2009,
shooting at a recruiting station
in Little Rock. Abdul
Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert who had recently travelled to
Yemen, killed one U.S. Army recruiter and wounded another.
Muhammad told police if other troops had been available, he would have
shot them too. The White House waited two days before making a
statement that omitted any reference to the attacker or his jihadist
motives.
The Nov. 5, 2009,
Fort Hood massacre, in which 14 were killed and 30 wounded, was
given a persistent coat of whitewash from the Obama administration.
The first coat was applied with initial statements that shooter Nidal
Malik Hassan was a "lone wolf" and continued through the comprehensive
"force protection review" that somehow omitted any reference to Hasan’s
jihadist motives or contacts with al Qaeda.
The Obama team had a
similarly slippery reaction to the Dec. 25, 2009, attempted "crotch
bomber" attack on Northwest flight 253. Al Qaeda-linked bomber
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was initially not even charged with attempting
to commit an act of terrorism. Faisal Shahzad, who attempted the
Times Square bombing in
May 2010, was also called a lone wolf with no ties to terrorism and was
even described as more a victim of the economic downturn than a
committed Islamic extremist. In all these cases, the initial
assessments turned out to be wrong, yet the White House still
obstinately refuses to discuss the jihadist motives of the terrorists
involved.
The Obama administration’s knee-jerk instinct to deny
reality in hopes it will go away is clearly not working. How many
Americans have to die before Obama at long last admits the nature of the
Islamist threat that killed them?
Related:Krauthammer criticizes Obama
for treating U.S. troop shooting in Germany like "a bus accident."
