BHO Terrorist Apology Eight Days After 9/11

[Musketeer]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

There was nothing wrong with Obama's quoted statement regarding understanding the motivations of such terrorists.

There is plenty wrong with Obama.

Those two statements have no problem standing side by side.

[Playboypenguin]

The BHO apologist are starting to respond not with facts or direct examples, but with dehumanizing opposition statements ... ever so typical.

Nice try, but throwing around labels and distractions (another tactic worthy of a non-thinking right wing mouthpiece) does not change the fact that his statement was completely valid and logical. Nor does it change the fact that your "out of context" presentation was unfair and biased and without any true merit.

To portray his statement as an "apology to terrorists" is also right out of the neo-com playbook. A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology. No where in the statement does he apologize to anyone and the blatant dishonesty in your portraying it as such is apparent.

You are basically saying it is a bad thing for him to say if the people are starving and they resort to stealing and harming others for food we need to punish them, but we also need to understand why they did it and try to prevent it in the future so we are not constantly on the defense against desperate and hungry hordes of people with nothing to loose.

Your perspective is very skewed and you are just looking for something to take out of context and run with it. At least I hope that is the case. I hope no one would actually believe in that "kill them all and let god sort them out" mentality that would be required to find his statements offensive.

Also, to try and portray his compassion for innocent civilians as a bad thing simply because they are of a foreign land is revolting. If you can't handle someone pointing out that fact maybe you should start considering your propaganda a little better before posting it.

[Webleymkv]

Obama is partially right, but I think he either misses or dodges the true point. Many of the people who are recruited into these terrorist organizations do come from horrible areas of extreme poverty and violence. Often, they join such organizations because they've been promised great rewards: be it worldly goods, a favorable afterlife, or care and protection for their families. So, in that respect Obama is correct that some of it stems from poverty and desperation.

However, what he fails to mention is the leaders of such movements for whom I have no sympathy. These evil people indoctrinate their people with hate and violence for, I believe, the sole purpose of control and greed. I think that part of the reason there is such great anti-western sentiment in the Middle East is because the leaders of many of these countries are afraid that their people will see what freedom really is and will then no longer be controllable. Others, such as Bin Laden, find leading terrorist organizations to give them control that they wouldn't otherwise have. They use the same tactic that Hitler did: control the people through unity against a common enemy. We are an easy target because we are prosperous (jealousy is an easy emotion to manipulate) and because many of the things that are permitted and sometimes even encouraged in our country contradict the values (the teachings of Islam) of the majority of people in that region. By controlling what glimpses of America their people are allowed to see, they are able to influence their peoples opinions of us. I would imagine that if the only exposure to American culture that someone raised in an Islamic country ever had was MTV it would be quite likely that we'd be viewed as decadent, immoral pigs.

The other thing that Obama fails to mention is this: the motivation for such actions does not justify them. Regardless of the horrid circumstances that these people may live in, I refuse to believe that all of them are psychotic (afterall, a true psychotic is someone who cannot feel empathy for another human being). I firmly believe that deep down, every sane person has the ability to distinguish between good and evil. I cannot fathom how anyone who is capable of making that distinction could possibly label the murder of innocent people as good. Because I think it's probable that most of the people who carry out such acts know deep down that they're doing evil things I think that they can be held accountable for them.

[Playboypenguin]

However, what he fails to mention is the leaders of such movements for whom I have no sympathy. These evil people indoctrinate their people with hate and violence for, I believe, the sole purpose of control and greed. I think that part of the reason there is such great anti-western sentiment in the Middle East is because the leaders of many of these countries are afraid that their people will see what freedom really is and will then no longer be controllable.

Yup, the leaders that pervert religion just to maintain power over a people that have every reason to overthrow them. Keeping them hungry, frustrated, hatefilled, and afraid is their only chance to maintain power. This is why I am so opposed to religion in government and manipulative tactics like were used after 9/11.

The other thing that Obama fails to mention is this: the motivation for such actions does not justify them.

He does not say it does. He simply states you have to understand motivation to fight an enemy. Anyone that has any military or LE experience would never argue with that at all.

[xrocket]

.



But, why do the Obama apologist continue to rant so vehemently?

Nor does it change the fact that your "out of context" presentation was unfair and biased and without any true merit.

Once again, they are BHO's written and published words ... not mine.

To portray his statement as an "apology to terrorists" is also right out of the neo-com playbook.

I never read the book you refer to. Perhaps you could lend me your copy? A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology.

You are basically saying it is a bad thing for him to say if the people are starving and they resort to stealing and harming others for food

Not me. Nowhere have I used the words starving, resort, stealing, harming, for food. They are your words sir and you should really try little harder to "pin the tail on the donkey".

Your perspective is very skewed and you are just looking for something to take out of context and run with it. At least I hope that is the case.

Well ... your hope is forlorn. You might want to take time to read this thread from the beginning to the end. Your characterizations are misguided and without substance.

Also, to try and portray his compassion for innocent civilians as a bad thing simply because they are of a foreign land is revolting.

Where did this revelation come from? Not me sir, again ...it is your words. "Revolting"? I hope you don't hurl all over your screen. It could all get rather messy.

As far as "foreigners", you are so misguided PBP and without a modicum of fact in support of your supposition. I'm married to a "foreigner", I've traveled a great deal of the world and all three of my children enjoy dual citizenship. It is pure conjecture on your part to link all foreigners to all Islamic Terrorist. Very strange indeed you would write such dribble.

If you can't handle someone pointing out that fact maybe you should start considering your propaganda a little better before posting it.

Seems as though it is working just fine, although I take umbrage with your use of the word "propaganda". I am not a professional political theorist or essayist and I state my opinions as I see them as a private citizen... "misguided" as they are. This is a free and open political forum is it not, or has the First Amendment been suspended by BHO and you too?

On the other hand, are there any BHO supporters who can cite a single piece of significant legislation he has initiated, sponsored or passed? I pose the question for a second time.

It appears BHO supporters (note I did not use the word "apologist". I guess I'm slowly adapting.) rely on emotion and irrational behavior in support of the chosen one.

Facts, substance and reality pale in the light of his presumptive coronation.




.

[longeyes]

"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: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. 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."

He's right that lack of "empathy" is a factor in brutality and violence; what he fails to grasp, it seems, is that such a lack is endemic to human nature and more common than uncommon. We struggle to be free, to be rational, to be kind, to be farsighted, to cooperate, to trust beyond our clan or tribe. It doesn't come naturally. Obtuseness is a given, and we'd better be realistic about that.

[xrocket]

The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."

This was BHO first written and published response to the 9/11 attack by Islamic Extremist Terrorist. Is this something you would write to your local newspaper eight days after the most heinous crime on American soil?

It is an apologetic explanation for the cause and effect of a criminal action against American citizens from BHO's socialist viewpoint. Nothing less and nothing more.

[Playboypenguin]

But, why do the Obama apologist continue to rant so vehemently?

Why do neo-con mouthpieces resort to name calling and labeling to distract from the weakness and dishonesty of their message?

Once again, they are BHO's written and published words ... not mine.

Words that you chose a small snippet from and posted put of context and then assigned false context and meaning to...very shady tactics that wreak of desperation.

I never read the book you refer to. Perhaps you could lend me your copy? A perfect and deliberately misleading misuse of terminology.

Really? Then it must just come natural to some people. Where in any part of his statement (which you posted out of context) does he ever truly apologize? I must have missed the "I'm sorry."

Not me. Nowhere have I used the words starving, resort, stealing, harming, for food. They are your words sir and you should really try little harder to "pin the tail on the donkey".

I guess understanding metaphor is beyond some people also. His words/ideas where sound and part of any tacticians playbook.

Well ... your hope is forlorn. You might want to take time to read this thread from the beginning to the end. Your characterizations are misguided and without substance.

Once again...really? Maybe you should read your own posts in this thread. There is really nothing that was said that means what you imply nor anything that is beyond the scope of good tactical thinking.

How much LE and mitlitary experience do you have? Have you never heard the philosophy of "know your enemy like you know yourself?" Have you never heard preemptive battle strategy? Such as learning the needs and issues of foreign citizens and trying to address those needs by building roads, providing clean water, building shelters, providing food, etc to prevent citizen involvement in future conflicts and to diminish recruitment capabilities of extremists. Perhaps you misrepresent Obama's statements because you simply do not understand them.

Where did this revelation come from? Not me sir, again ...it is your words. "Revolting"? I hope you don't hurl all over your screen. It could all get rather messy.

This was in reference to your labeling me an apologist for stating that some of the responses on here called for all of out enemies to be killed wholesale. You are no the only person I was responding to in the post you chose to attack me on.

But since you want to bring it up...you seem fond of the words ISLAMIC terrorist. You also call Obama in question with references to his past ISLAMIC connection. Do you have a problem with terrorists...or just islamic ones? Do you have a problem with poitical positions, or just positions of politicians you perceive to have islamic ties?

On the other hand, are there any BHO supporters who can cite a single piece of significant legislation he has initiated, sponsored or passed? I pose the question for a second time.

Cite some significant achievements from the last seven years of the Bush administration. Especially the first year and a half.

[Playboypenguin]

PS: I will be on the old Blackberry for most of the next couple days so I may not be back to L&P for a bit. The long posts get confusing on the small screen. Everyone please talk amongst yourselves. I will give you a topic.

When taking into account the tactical reality of the importance of understanding the plights of the people of a foreign enemy, how does one condemn Obama's statements?

[SecDef]

The BHO apologist are starting to respond not with facts or direct examples, but with dehumanizing opposition statements ... ever so typical.

Ah, another page from the neo-con playbook: take your worst fault and accuse others of having it.

Obama's statements don't need any further defense. In response you have only come back with "is too, is too, is too" acting like our petulant president. You have made up your mind and are fitting the facts around it.

[Playboypenguin]

Ah, another page from the neo-con playbook: take your worst fault and accuse others of having it.

Actually, I thought the best tactic was the preassigning the label of "Obama apologist" to anyone that found fault with the facts of the topic before they even spoke.

[xrocket]

How much LE and military experience do you have?

I fail to see how the question is relevant to this discussion especial since you introduced a disparaging remark about those without military or LE experience. I'll give you a very small peek. A slice if you will, but just for your eyes only; Master's level, History of Warfare. And as you so astutely point out, the rest is a given.

you seem fond of the words ISLAMIC terrorist. You also call Obama in question with references to his past ISLAMIC connection. Do you have a problem with terrorists...or just Islamic ones? Do you have a problem with poetical positions, or just positions of politicians you perceive to have Islamic ties?

Actually I do. I call a spade a spade, a terrorist a terrorist and an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist. That sir, is what they are plain and simple.

[Playboypenguin]

I fail to see how the question is relevant to this discussion especial since you introduced a disparaging remark about those without military or LE experience. I'll give you a very small peek. A slice if you will, but just for your eyes only; Master's level, History of Warfare. And as you so astutely point out, the rest is a given.

In other words you are saying.."No, I have not real experience."

Actually I do

Ah, so this is all about religious intolerance for you. You think some peopl eare just bad because they are the wrong religion.

[xrocket]

So twisted...

[Playboypenguin]

So twisted...

Are you referring to your current responses or your agenda as a whole? Witch hunts are pretty twisted.

[xrocket]

and a sharper hook Buddy.

[Playboypenguin]

and a sharper hook Buddy.

Ah...I get it. When your argument has been exposed as base agenda driven propaganda it is best to try and appear to be taking the high road and play martyr. It is easier than trying to defend the falsehoods and misrepresentations of your actual case. Actually trying to debate the subject may make the peasants realize that the emperor has no clothes.

[xrocket]

debate when one shouts with closed eyes and ears. Your doing your level best to bait a reaction to get this thread closed down and I will not accommodate you. I will ask a question though;

Would you have written this to your local newspaper editorial department eight days after 9/11 ...PBP?

BHO ...
"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: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. 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."

[Playboypenguin]

debate when one shouts with closed eyes and ears. Your doing your level best to bait a reaction to get this thread closed down and I will not accommodate you. I will ask a question though;

Garbage, your tactic of avoiding the actual topic is what will ge tthe thread closed. You presented an thread that was based either on gross misunderstanding or deliberate deception and then when you cannot defend your position you resort to distraction.

Would you have written this to your local newspaper editorial department eight days after 9/11 ...PBP?

To say what?

"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: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. 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."

Translation: These people did bad things because they are bad people. They cannot blame their birth nation nor their heritage for the fact they are bad people. People are not born bad. It was their enviroment and their personal choices that made them bad. We need to try and find out what circumstances are creating such bad people and try to stop the cycle before it reaches the point of more lives being lost.

Yeah, real damaging stuff their.

[xrocket]

sent your translation of BHO words to your local newspaper's editorial department eight days after 9/11?

PBP ...Translation: These people did bad things because they are bad people. They cannot blame their birth nation nor their heritage for the fact they are bad people. People are not born bad. It was their environment and their personal choices that made them bad. We need to try and find out what circumstances are creating such bad people and try to stop the cycle before it reaches the point of more lives being lost.

[Playboypenguin]

Absolutely. What is wrong with what he said? Nothing, that is what is wrong with it. It is compassionate, well reasoned, and tactically sound.

You are, as I have already said, either having trouble comprehending the meaning of his words or deliberately assigning false meaning to further a person agenda.

[xrocket]

Absolutely.

I know all I need to know about you.

[Playboypenguin]

I know all I need to know about you.

What is that? That I am able to understand when someone is saying something compassionate, considerate, tactically sound, and intellectually well thought out? regardless of how I feel about them as a candidate? That I do not let Rush and O'Reilly tell me what to think of someone?

[mountainclmbr]

I would argue that Socialism/Marxism is a religion too. A religion where the totalitarian Marxist leader plays God and almost always bans any other religion. Having been to Tibet, I can say that I have first-hand experience with the face of this evil religion and I want no part of it. There is a close similarity between the totalitarian part of the belief systems of radical Marxists and radical Islamists. I think that is why the far left is against fighting the terrorists.